Appeal No. 2004-0085
Application No. 09/876,447
The appellants have separately grouped and argued the
appealed claims in accordance with the manner in which they have
been rejected (see page 5 of the Brief).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain each of
these rejections.
As explained by the examiner in the Answer, the Koos
reference discloses both a method and an apparatus for in-situ
cleaning of a pad and wafer during chemical mechanical polishing
wherein an acid-containing solution is dispensed onto the top
surface of the polishing pad (see Answer, page 3-4). The
examiner describes in detail how the Koos reference discloses
every element of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-18, including the steps of
“mixing an acid-containing solution from water and an acid
selected from the group consisting of HF (hydrofluoric acid)” and
“dispensing the acid-containing solution onto the top surface of
the polishing pad 16 while the wafer 12 and the pad 16 are being
rotated” (see Answer, page 3).
The appellants respond on page 8 of the Brief that the
solution disclosed in Koos and relied upon by the examiner in the
final rejection “contains both a weak acid and a weak base and,
wherein the only example of a weak acid is shown as containing 20
parts of ammonium fluoride and 1 part hydrofluoric acid, which is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007