Appeal No. 2004-0216
Application No. 09/460,112
paragraph). In response to appellants' argument, the examiner
cites column 5, lines 32-60 of Chau and explains that "[t]he
first part of the process removes some of the oxynitride layer
and then a second etch is used to remove the remaining layer"
(page 8 of Answer, fourth paragraph). The examiner also cites
column 6, lines 1-14 of Chau.
Our review of Chau finds us in agreement with appellants to
the extent that the examiner factually errs in stating that "Chau
discloses a method in which the wafer is cleaned in the absence
of a silicon oxynitride layer" (page 7 of Answer, third
paragraph). Contrary to the examiner's position, it is quite
clear from the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6 of Chau, and
accompanying Figures 1-6, that Chau cleans after the photoresist
is removed and the patterned SiON layer (106) is present on the
substrate. Accordingly, the examiner's conclusion that the
combined teachings of the prior art result in the inherent
removal of water spots lacks the requisite factual support.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007