Appeal No. 2004-0138
Application No. 09/311, 800
Olesen et al. 5,656,097 Aug. 12, 1997
(Olesen)
Kern et al., “Handbook of Semiconductor Wafer Cleaning Technology”, pg. 49-52,
1993
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 14, 15, 17, 44-46 and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Resnick, Kern and Olesen; and claims 39
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as obvious over the combination of Resnick, Kern,
Olesen and Fujikawa.2 (Final Rejection, pp. 3-7).
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by Appellants and
the Examiner, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’ position in that the
Examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. We will limit our
discussion to independent claims 14 and 44.3
2 According to the Examiner, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has
been withdrawn. (Answer, p. 2).
3The Examiner did not cite the Fujikawa reference in the rejection of claims 14 and 44.
Thus, we will not include a discussion of this reference in our decision.
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007