Appeal No. 2000-1006
Application 08/974,148
I. Claims 1-3, 11 and 12
The examiner maintains that claims 1-3, 11 and 12 are
unpatentable over Jackson for the following reasons:
Jackson disclose[s] (see col. 1 line 20
through col. 4 line 61) a method of cleaning
solid surfaces by removing adherent water
insoluble organic contaminants substantially
as claimed. The claims differ from Jackson
by reciting that the oxidant and pH adjusting
agent are in specific amounts. It is
submitted that the amounts of hydrogen
peroxide and alkaline material added in
Jackson are considered patentably indis-
tinguishable from those used in the instant
method. It is further submitted that the
amounts of hydrogen peroxide added in Jackson
would appear to convert at least some of the
organic contaminants to an ionized form as
in the instant method. It would have been
obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
the method of Jackson by utilizing the
recited amounts of oxidant and pH adjustment
agent, to aid in cleaning the solid surfaces.
The specific pH, temperature, and hydrogen
peroxide concentration utilized, would have
been an obvious matter of process optimiza-
tion to one skilled in the art, depending on
the specific surface treated and results
desired, absent a sufficient showing of
unexpected results.
Final Rejection, Paper No. 19, mailed April 8, 1999, pages 2-3,
paragraph 3.
Appellant argues that Jackson is directed to removing
solder flux which is not a “water-insoluble organic material” as
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007