Appeal No. 1997-3360
Application No. 08/119,785
invention, the combination of Basi ‘954 or Basi ‘457 with
Cleveland teaches away from it. W.L. Gore & Assoc. v.
Garlock, Inc ., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 311 (Fed.
Cir. 1983, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (holding that it
is error to find obviousness where the prior art references
“diverge from and teach away from the invention at hand”).
Absent some teaching, suggestion, or incentive to combine
the prior art references to arrive at a method including a
step of washing a wafer with a solution consisting essentially
of water and NH OH while simultaneously applying ultrasonic
4
energy to the solution, the examiner’s obviousness rejection
cannot stand. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys. Inc., 157 F.3d 1340,
1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We therefore
hold that the examiner has not carried the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie of obviousness within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007