Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
of a spin coater [id.]. Although this step does not control the
flow rate from the dispenser per se, it does control the rate at
which the fluid is distributed to the surface of the wafer away
from the axis of rotation. These surface portions away from the
axis of rotation also are part of the receiving surface. Since
claim 13 only recites that the flow of fluid to the receiving
surface is altered, and since the flow of fluid to the outer
reaches of the wafer is a function of the speed of the spin
coater (as well as the dispense rate), then the step of altering
as recited in claim 13 is fully met by Ushijima when the film
resist forming step is controlled by changing the rotation rate
of the coater. We agree with the examiner that when claim 13 is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 13 is fully
met by the disclosure of Ushijima.
We now consider the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Lin and Ushijima. In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a
factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is expected to make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007