Appeal 2006-2444
Application 10/342,053
With regard to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Schilling teaches
exposing the substrate with a material to be removed to the cleaning mixture
of supercritical carbon dioxide and the co-solvent, rinsing the substrate with
organic solvents, and then re-exposing the substrate to the cleaning mixture
(Answer 3).
Appellants argue that Schilling does not teach any use of different
rinse steps using different chemistries (Br. 11; Reply Br. 2). This argument
is not well taken since claim 11 does not require different chemistries, but
merely requires a second concentration that is the “same or different” from
the first concentration (Answer 7). With regard to the limitations of claim
12 on appeal (Reply Br. 3), we agree with the Examiner that Schilling
teaches the use of various cleaning and rinse cycles as necessary to remove
the unwanted material (for cleaning) and trace amounts of remaining residue
(for rinsing). See Schilling, ¶ [0016], [0017], [0057 – 0060], and [0071]. As
discussed above, the use of slightly different concentrations in either the
cleaning mixture or the rinse solution would have been expected by one of
ordinary skill in this art to achieve similar results, absent any showing of
criticality.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007