Appeal No. 2005-0536
Application No. 09/940,788
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 4 of the principal brief, claims 1 and 3 stand or fall
together, whereas claim 2 is argued separately.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement
with the examiner that the applied reference describes the
claimed subject matter on appeal within the meaning of § 102.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Cady, like appellants, describes a
method of drying wet-cleaned wafers by spin drying the wafers in
a chamber in the presence of an inert gas. The principal
argument advanced by appellants is that Cady does not describe
supplying the inert gas in a greater amount at the outer
peripheral portion of the wafer than at the center of the wafer.
However, we totally concur with the examiner that the method
described in accordance with Figure 8B of Cady necessarily
results in the claim limitation of supplying more inert gas to
the outer peripheral portion of the wafer than to the center of
the wafer. In the words of the examiner, the embodiment depicted
in Figure 8B of Cady "provides gas supply ports such that the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007