Appeal No. 2002-0897
Application 09/303,020
is comparable to that obtained when brush scrubbing and HF are
used in combination (i.e., about 58 counts versus about
50 counts). Consequently, this figure would have indicated to
one of ordinary skill in the art that brush scrubbing, whether
used alone or in combination with HF, is effective for reducing
the total defect count to at or near the below-detection level.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Roy’s
brush scrubbing in Doan’s post-CMP cleanup method. For this
reason and because the appellants have not provided evidence of
secondary considerations for overcoming the prima facie case of
obviousness, we affirm the examiner’s rejection.3
3 A discussion of Kirlin, which is relied upon by the
examiner for a disclosure of the barrier layer required by the
appellants’ dependent claim 17 (answer, page 3), is not necessary
to our decision.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007