Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
recited in claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5.
With respect to claim 24, appellants additionally argue that
neither Ushijima nor Lin teaches the step of dispensing the fluid
from the second nozzle when the fluid from the first nozzle flows
outwardly to a radius from the axis [supplemental brief, page 9].
The examiner responds that Ushijima teaches monitoring the
surface of the wafer at a location away from the axis of
rotation.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 24 and of claims 25 and 26 which depend therefrom. Claim
24 recites a method in which the fluid from the second nozzle is
controlled as a function of the flow of fluid from the first
nozzle. Although Lin teaches that the two nozzles are separately
and independently controlled, there is no description in Lin of
how to relate the control of one nozzle to the control of the
other nozzle. Thus, Lin provides no specific suggestion that the
second nozzle should be controlled only when fluid from the first
nozzle has flowed outwardly to some radius from the axis of
rotation. Therefore, the applied prior art fails to support the
examiner’s rejection of claims 24-26.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007