Ex parte MIYAZAWA et al. - Page 13

          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                

               The language of independent claim 4 is quite similar to                
          claims 1 and 13, except that, while it contains the requirement             


Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007