Appeal No. 2001-1633
Application 09/092,543
With respect to claim 30, appellants additionally argue that
neither Ushijima nor Lin teaches the step of dispensing the fluid
at a second radius from the axis when the fluid dispensed at a
first radius flows to a radius from the axis [supplemental brief,
page 10]. The examiner again responds that Ushijima teaches
monitoring the surface of the wafer at a location away from the
axis of rotation. The recitation in claim 30 is similar to the
recitation of claim 24. That is, claim 30 recites that flow at a
second radius (nozzle 2) is dispensed when fluid dispensed at a
first radius (nozzle 1) has flowed to some radius from the axis.
As noted above, Lin provides no suggestion of controlling the
dispensing of fluid at the second nozzle as a function of fluid
dispensed from the first nozzle reaching some location on the
surface of the wafer. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 30.
With respect to claims 31 and 32, appellants additionally
argue that neither Ushijima nor Lin teaches the step of altering
the fluid flow [supplemental brief, page 10]. The examiner
responds that Ushijima teaches altering the fluid flow as
claimed. As noted above with respect to claim 13, Ushijima
teaches that the flow of fluid onto the receiving surface is
altered as a function of measured thickness based on changing the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007