Appeal No. 2000-1163
Application 08/649,262
We find that, when considered in light of the written description in the specification as
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54
USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989), the plain language of appealed independent claims 1, 12, 22 and 28 require that the
claimed methods for treating a metal-based residue in a semiconductor processing chamber
comprise at least, as seen from appealed claim 1, (1) introducing a treatment gas into the
processing chamber during a cleaning process, (2) permitting the treatment gas to interact with
the metal-based residue to form a removable treatment product that is substantially stable when
exposed to air as compared with the metal-based residue, and (3) opening the process chamber to
remove the treatment product (emphasis supplied). In appealed claim 22, the treatment gas is
ammonia which forms an adduct salt with at least one chloride of titanium. In appealed claim
28, the treatment gas reduces the reactivity in air of the metal-based residue to produce a
neutralized metal-based residue. In all claims, the process chamber is opened to remove the
treatment product.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have
found in the prior art method as acknowledged at col. 1, line 46, to col. 2, line 25, of Eichman,
these same three required method conditions of the appealed claims, for otherwise there is no
factual foundation for the three grounds of rejection. It is well settled that a reference stands for
all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see generally, In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); presuming skill on the part of this
person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We have carefully considered the prior art method as acknowledged in Eichman in light
of the positions advanced by the examiner (answer, pages 3-4 and 7-9) and appellants (brief,
pages 6-9). We must agree with appellants that the examiner has misinterpreted the prior art
method as acknowledged in Eichman.
The cited passage reads in first pertinent part, “a portion of the reactant gases [TiCl4 and
NH3] combine to form adduct salts of the reactants, such as white or yellow salts of TiCl4.NH3,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007