Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 13-16 stand or fall together as a single group
[supplemental brief, page 4]. With respect to representative
claim 13, the examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Ushijima [answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that neither Ushijima nor Lin teaches altering
the flow of fluid to the receiving surface in view of monitored
information. In other words, appellants argue that the flow of
fluid is never altered in the applied prior art [supplemental
brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that Ushijima teaches
controlling the resist film forming step in response to the
measured thickness of the film [answer, pages 12-13]. Appellants
respond that the cited sections of Ushijima do not support the
examiner’s findings [reply brief, page 2].
We will sustain this rejection of claims 13-16. Ushijima
discloses that either the step of forming the resist film is
controlled, the exposing step is controlled or the developing
step is controlled in response to a measured thickness [column 3,
line 60 to column 4, line 10]. When the resist film forming step
is controlled, the control is achieved by changing the spin speed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007