Appeal No. 2003-0636
Application No. 09/599,125
plating step. In the present case, the examiner has failed to
demonstrate that the methods employed by appellants and Lopatin
are so similar that one would reasonably expect that the plating
process of Lopatin also accomplishes cleaning. Since appellants
disclose the use of spraying or megasonic energy to effect
cleaning during the plating step, and Lopatin only discloses the
use of a plating bath, there is no factual basis for concluding
that the plating of Lopatin also achieves cleaning.
We will also not sustain the examiner's § 103 rejection over
the combination of Mallory and Lopatin. Mallory, like Lopatin,
uses only a plating bath with no disclosure of employing
megasonic energy. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above,
there is no reason to think that the combined teachings of
Mallory and Lopatin would result in cleaning of the substrate
during the plating operation.
The § 103 rejections over Mallory in view of Lopatin and
Reynolds and Mallory in view of Lopatin and Kobayashi are another
matter. As explained by the examiner, Reynolds discloses that it
was known in the art to use megasonic energy to clean semi-
conductor wafers, and Reynolds employs megasonic energy during
electroless plating "to achieve coatings of high uniformity
across the surface of a substrate" (column 3, lines 66-67).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007