Appeal No. 2004-0085
Application No. 09/876,447
The solution disclosed by Koos qualifies as a water solution of
HF.
We further note that independent claims 1 and 11 (as well as
all of the dependent claims) are considered “open” claims because
they include the term “comprising” in the preamble. Therefore,
interpretation of all of the claims under appeal is not limited
to only those elements specifically recited. The term
“comprises” permits the inclusion of other (i.e., unrecited)
steps, elements, or materials. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686,
210 USPQ 795, 802. Thus, the fact that the solution disclosed in
Koos includes a weak acid and a weak base does not preclude the
reference from reading on the claim recitation of an “acid-
containing solution from water and an acid selected from the
group consisting of citric acid, HCOOH, CH3COOH, HNO3, H2SO4, and
HF” (i.e., because the claims are “open” claims).
Finally, with respect to appellants’ argument that Koos does
not teach a method of cleaning a pad and a wafer, we point to the
abstract as well as Figure 3 of the Koos reference for support
that Koos teaches a method of cleaning a pad and a wafer. The
abstract states in part that “[a] diluting solution is then
applied to the polishing pad to remove slurry of the first CMP
step.” Removal of slurry constitutes cleaning of a pad and a
wafer. Further, element 44 of Figure 3 contains the caption
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007