Appeal No. 2003-1280 6
Application No. 09/476,633
solvent present, i.e. water. Hence there is a paradox present in the language utilized by
the appellants. A solution consisting of one component cannot be a solution as the
solvent is barred by the language of the claimed subject matter.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, the rejection of the examiner under
§ 112, first paragraph is sustainable.
The Rejection under § 102(e)
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of
the elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
It is the appellants’ position that, “Kishii does not disclose rinsing the surface of a
plug; only cleaning of a substrate using a cleaning solution containing acid, hydrogen
peroxide and water . . . .” See Brief, page 5. We disagree with the appellants’
characterization. Exhibit B relied upon by the appellants’ describes “rinsing” as a,
“process in which [a] wafer is immersed in deionized water in order to stop chemical
reactions initiated during preceding operation and to remove products of these reactions
from the surface.” See Brief, pages 5 and 6.
By the appellants’ own definition, the method utilized in the claimed subject matter,
fails to comply with the definition submitted in Exhibit B. The claimed subject matter
requires the presence of hydrogen peroxide as an indispensable component utilized in
the method claimed by the appellants. Hydrogen peroxide is not an innocuous neutral
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007