Appeal No. 2004-0138
Application No. 09/311, 800
We find claims 14 and 44 are directed to a method of cleaning a surface of a
microelectronic device at a stage of manufacture. The method comprising the steps of
positioning the device in a vessel, introducing a cleaning liquid to the vessel and
progressively immersing the device in the cleaning liquid. Acoustic energy is
transferred to the cleaning liquid while the device is progressively immersed. The
cleaning fluid is described as having a concentration of aqueous ammonia that is
sufficiently dilute with respect to the aqueous ammonia such that the cleaning liquid
is substantially non-etching with respect to the surface of the device. Appellants
disclose that the phrase substantially no etching means that 10 angstroms or less of the
native oxide is etched by the cleaning liquid. (Specification, pp. 7-8).
The Examiner rejects the subject matter of claims 14 and 44 over the
combination of Resnick, Kern and Olesen. According to the Examiner, Resnick
teaches immersing wafers in a megasonic bath containing an ultradilute SC-1 cleaning
compositions that comprise 1-1000ppm ammonia and hydrogen peroxide. Kern
teaches reducing the ammonia concentration in SC-1 cleaning composition eliminates
roughening and enhances removal of particles. The Examiner relied on the Olesen
reference for teaching progressively immersing a device in an ammonia cleaning
liquid while applying megasonic energy. (Final Rejection, p. 4). The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to apply acoustic energy, as taught by
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007