Appeal No. 96-1805
Application 08/200,432
considering, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to utilize
hydrogen gas in the Hoshi process, there is nothing in Black
which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
the additional steps of evacuating the air from the chamber and
replacing it with hydrogen prior to Hoshi's teaching of reducing
the pressure after contact between the wafers has been made.
These two new steps would have been essential to the Hoshi
teachings as incorporated into the process disclosed in the
admitted prior art.
The other reference cited against claims 1 and 13 fails to
alleviate the shortcomings discussed above found in the
combination of the admitted prior art, Wells, Hoshi and Black,
and therefore it is our view that the combined teachings of the
references fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 13
or, it follows, of claims 3 and 6 through 21, which depend
therefrom. The rejection of these claims is, therefore, not
sustained.
The language of independent claim 4 is quite similar to
claims 1 and 13, except that, while it contains the requirement
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007