Appeal No. 2003-0907
Application No. 09/337,278
using high resistivity water during cleaning. The prior art must be considered
together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A
reference need not explain every detail since it is speaking to those skilled in the art.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We have carefully considered the evidence in the declaration, filed May 20,
2002, in light of the arguments in the brief. We must disagree with Appellants that
the evidence establishes that the results of the showings are unexpected from the
teachings of the cited references. The declaration compares the method of cleaning
an alumina titanium carbide wafer using water with a resistivity ranging from 0.1 to
17 MS, adjusted with CO2 gas. Appellants argue that Miyashita does not disclose
the presence of CO2 however, the showing of the declaration does not compare the
adjustment of resistivity with other gases. See, e.g., In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1179-80, 201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979) (the claimed subject matter must be
compared with the closest prior art in a manner which addresses the thrust of the
rejection). As stated above, the method of Miyashita does not disclose what is done
to the water to provide a resistivity of about 5 MScm. The Appellants have not
provided a nexus between showing in the declaration and the invention of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007