Appeal No. 96-2261
Application 08/026,669
The examiner argues (final rejection, paper no. 9, mailed
February 13, 1995, page 3):
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in
the art at the time the invention was made to expose
the objects to be cleaned to ultraviolet light and a
spray of resist developer fluid because this is a
well known method of removing positive photoresists
from substrates. After all, resist/developer
systems are designed to do this.
The examiner’s argument is not well taken because the
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent, why the
use of ultraviolet light exposure and resist developer to form
microcircuits would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, use of ultraviolet light exposure and resist
developer for cleaning Bardina’s wafer handling equipment. In
order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established,
the teachings from the prior art itself must appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the prior art could
be modified as proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007