Appeal No. 2000-1164 Page 7
Application No. 08/899,176
possess the solution characteristics relied on. See In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980); In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In
re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019, 176 USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973); In
re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664, 169 USPQ 563, 566 (CCPA 1971); In
re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Here, appellants have not done so.
While appellants (brief, page 6) urge that Eitoku “does not
teach doping a quantity of deionized water with at least one
species of ions such that the resistivity of water is less than
18 x 106 ohm-cm,” appellants have not offered any evidence or
scientific reasoning to rebut the examiner’s determination that
the combination of DI water and the ion forming chemical (HF or
NH4OH) that is used in scrubbing a wafer in Eitoku constitutes an
ion doping step resulting in a water solution with a resistivity
of less than 18 X 106 ohm-cm as required by representative
appealed claim 8.
Hence, we agree with the examiner that Eitoku describes a
method that corresponds to appellants’ method as recited in
representative claim 8 and that any functional characteristics
recited in claim 8 to the extent that they are not expressly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007