Appeal No. 94-1549
Application 07/945,540
subsequently be used to form the photoresist composition of Durham. The preformed
solvent mixture meets the requirements of claim 1 on appeal. The statement of
intended use set forth in claim 1 on appeal does not patentably distinguish the claimed
composition from that reasonably suggested by Durham. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974). Consequently we affirm the rejection
of claim 1.
We reverse the rejection of claims 2-15. Claims 2-15 require, inter alia, that the
claimed composition contain about 5-40% water. The examiner pointed to column 6,
lines 44-54, of Durham at page 2 of the First Office Action (Paper No. 3, December 3,
1992) as teaching this aspect of the claimed invention. That portion of Durham is
directed to developing the exposed, resist-coated substrates of that invention. As seen
from that portion of the reference, the coated photoresist composition is subjected to an
elevated temperature to remove a substantial portion of the solvent content. See
column 6, lines 8-43, of Durham. As specifically set forth at column 6, lines 34-39,
when the coated substrate is contacted with water, the photoresist coating contains, at
most, about 30% solvent. The lowest amount of solvent which can be present in the
composition of claim 2 on appeal is 60%. The examiner has not taken this discrepancy
in solvent values into account in making his patentability determination under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007