Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Fukuda.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 4, 5 and 11 since the appellants,
allowing these claims to stand or fall with their respective
parent claims 1 and 10 (see pages 13, 16 and 17 in the main
brief), have not disputed the merits thereof.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Fukuda.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further defines the workpiece
processing step set forth in the parent claim as including “an
etch process.” The examiner has failed to point out, and it is
not evident, how or why Fukuda teaches or would have suggested
processing the workpiece, i.e., substrate 1, with an etching
process.3
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6,
10 and 11 is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 5, 10 and
11, and reversed with respect to claim 6.
3 The etching process disclosed by Fukuda occurs during the
chamber cleaning phase after the substrate 1 has been removed
from the chamber.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007