Appeal No. 2001-2146
Application No. 09/270,588
Nonetheless, the examiner further relies upon a further teaching in Miyashita that an
incineration treatment using oxygen plasma may be replaced by solvent removal. See column
2, lines 64-66, column 7, line 67 to column 8, line 4 and column 12, lines 10-16. This
teaching of equivalency is utilized by the examiner to establish that solvent stripping and
oxygen plasma can both be used to strip a photoresist. Accordingly, the position of the
examiner is that the combination of references teach stripping a photoresist by combining the
photoresist of Liao with the UV treatment of Wright and the alternative oxygen plasma and
solvent treatment of Miyashita.
We find, however, that inadequate motivation has been presented by the examiner in
order to combine the references of record. As we found supra, Wright discloses the utilization
of a UV treatment in the absence of a solvent. Accordingly, no reason is seen for utilizing the
solvent of Miyashita. Furthermore Miyashita utilizes an oxygen plasma incineration of the
remaining resist or the utilization of a solvent treatment. The suggestion does not come within
the purview of combining two or more materials where each is taught by the prior art to be
useful for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072
(CCPA 1980). In our view, Miyashita teaches two alternative processes, one directed to
solvent stripping, wherein each process is independent of the other. Furthermore, as we
stated supra, Wright expressly teaches away from the utilization of a process wherein solvent is
utilized to dissolve a photoresist.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007