Appeal No. 2004-0138
Application No. 09/311, 800
Olesen, to a wafer in the megasonic bath, taught by Resnick, containing the reduced
ultradilute SC-1 cleaning, taught by Kern. (Final Rejection, p. 5).
We reverse. We are in complete agree with the Appellants, Brief pages 19-31,
that the combination of Resnick, Kern and Olesen fails to teach the claimed method.
The Examiner relies on Kern for teaching the use of a dilute cleaning solutions. The
Examiner never asserts that the cleaning solution of Kern is “substantially non-etching
with respect to the surface of the device” as required by claims 14 and 44. The
specification discloses that non-etching means that 10 angstroms or less of the native
oxide is etched by the cleaning liquid. The Examiner has not indicated that this
property is inherent in the cleaning solution of Kern. Appellants have argued that the
cleaning solution of Kern is too concentrated to be substantially non-etching as
required by claims 14 and 44. (Brief, p. 31). The Appellants referred to the
Miyashita and Meuris documents, cited in the Kern reference, in support of his
argument. The Examiner has chosen not to address these documents in the answer.
(Pages 8-9). Moreover, we recognize that Kern discloses that the Meuris reference
does not support the teaching of eliminating roughening and enhanced removal of
particles. (Kern, footnote page 49). The Examiner has also not addressed this
disclosure in the reference.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007