Appeal No. 2001-2146
Application No. 09/270,588
We agree with the examiner’s positive findings in Liao, Answer, page 3. We further
find however that Liao discloses solvent stripping. See column 5, lines 34 -48 and column 6,
lines 30-33. Wright in contrast, is directed to “[A] solvent free method for removing thin
organic polymeric film from a substrate.” See Abstract. Wright teaches that organic
polymeric film serves as a resist and allows for etching an exposed surface in a patterned
manner. See column 1, lines 17-20. “Upon completion of the etching step, it is sometimes
desirable to remove the organic polymeric resist from the remaining substrate surface.” See
column 1, lines 20-22. Wright in a discussion of the prior art further discloses that removal
of the organic polymer was accomplished by a solvent which dissolves the soluble organic
polymeric film. See column 1, lines 29-31. However, “the removal of the insoluble
photoresist either positive or negative from the remaining substrate was often difficult. The
remaining resist was often insoluble in most organic solvents. Removal of the resist was
generally effected after extended soaking combined with mechanical attrition or burning.”
See column 1, lines 32-38. We find that the improvement disclosed in Wright is that UV
light can be utilized to effect the removal of positive photoresists. See column 1, lines 55-73
and column 3, lines 20-26. This overcomes the prior art difficulties of removing organic
solvent insoluble films from substrates. See column 1, lines 66-69. We accordingly,
conclude that Wright teaches away from the utilization of solvents.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007