Appeal No. 94-3000
Application 07/914,654
the Kurokawa references as discussed above, we determine, as
indicated supra, that it would have been obvious to employ the
conventional IPA vapor drying method in the drying step of
Steck.
Moreover, appellants appear to argue that the showing in
the Table at page 11 of the specification establishes the
criticality of the claimed particular solvents over other
solvents. Appellants, however, do not refer to any comparison
between the closest prior art, a conventional drying process
employing 2-propanol vapor, and the claimed invention. In re
Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978).
Nor do appellants demonstrate that the showing in the Table is
commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains.
In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA
1979). While the showing is limited to silicon wafers treated
with specific steps and solvents under particular conditions,
none of the claims is so limited.
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the evidence of record for and against
obviousness, on balance, weighs most heavily in favor of an
obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007