Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The rejection is explained by the examiner on pages 4-8 of
the answer. With respect to each of the rejected claims,
appellants argue that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, appellants argue
that there is no motivation within the applied prior art for
combining the teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner.
Appellants also argue that neither reference teaches controlling
the flow as recited in the claims. Appellants point out that the
portions of Ushijima noted by the examiner fail to teach
controlling the flow as claimed [supplemental brief, pages 4-8].
The examiner responds that Lin and Ushijima each teaches the step
of controlling the forming of a resist film on a silicon wafer.
The examiner indicates that it would have been obvious to control
the dispensers in Lin by monitoring film thickness at a location
on the surface of the wafer as taught by Ushijima [answer, pages
8-12]. Appellants respond that Ushijima does not teach
controlling fluid flow based on the location of the fluid on the
surface of the wafer [reply brief, pages 1-2].
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007