Appeal No. 2002-1260 Page 5
Application No. 09/137,179
composition for removing residues of dry etching. See, e.g.,
page 6, lines 3-5 of Liaw.
Appellants argue that Liao and Liaw are directed to
concentrated solutions outside the scope of appellants’ claimed
subject matter. Indeed, we note that Liaw refers to the use of a
concentrated 96 % sulfuric acid in formulating a solution and
does not make reference to adding water so as to dilute the
solution to a level that corresponds to the maximum 15 weight
percent sulfuric acid concentration of claim 1, let alone the 10
weight percent maximum of claim 6.
Against that background, the examiner has not reasonably
established why one of ordinary skill in the art in optimizing
the compositions of Liao or Liaw for their intended purposes of
removing sidewall residue after etching of non-metallic materials
would have arrived at the here claimed composition. Nor has the
examiner explained how Molinaro would compensate for that
deficiency of Liao or Liaw.
Since the examiner’s rejections are not sustainable for the
reasons set forth above, we need not burden the record by
addressing appellants’ declaration under 37 CFR § 1.131.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007