Appeal No. 2003-0907
Application No. 09/337,278
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner, Answer pages 16-17. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that when cleaning contaminants from a brush/sponge it should not be in
contact with the device to be cleaned. Also a person of ordinary skill would have
recognized that the water used to clean the device would have been suitable for
rinsing the brush/sponge.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miyashita, Kanno and Simmons, as applied to
claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 further combined with Chung; and claims 9 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Miyashita, Kanno,
Takehiko and Simmons, as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 further combined with
Chung.4
The Examiner added Chung to the cited prior art to exhibit that soaking of a
semiconductor device in water having a resistivity less than 10 MS prior to cleaning
4 Claim 10 is a multiple dependant claim. We recognize that the subject matter of
claim 10 does not further limit subject matter of claim 9. In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner should ensure that this dependancy is corrected.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007