Appeal No. 2000-1164 Page 9
Application No. 08/899,176
would have been led to employ a workable and typically used water
pressure above the 1,000 psi. minimum called for in
representative claim 8 in the scrubbing process of Eitoku, such
typical pressures being admitted by appellants at page 2 of the
specification to be known in the art. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 13, 14, 19
and 20 over Eitoku and the admitted prior art.
§ 103 Rejection Over Kern and Eitoku
With respect to this ground of rejection and representative
claim 10, appellants again contend that the ion doping step of
claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, is not taught. However, we
disagree for the reasons set forth above and in the answer.
Appellants do not argue the additional limitations of claim 10
with any particularity. It follows that we shall also sustain
the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10-12 and 16-18 over
Kern and Eitoku.
§ 102 Rejection Over Yamashita
Each of the claims rejected under § 102 as anticipated by
Yamashita require a method for cleaning wafers wherein deionized
water is doped or has ions added thereto. Yamashita is concerned
with a method for cleaning photo-masks. Yamashita discloses the
use of weak acidic aqueous solutions or a weak alkaline aqueous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007