Appeal No. 2004-0630
Application No. 09/755,177
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and the examiner concerning these rejections, we
refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for a
complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain each of the
rejections before us on this appeal.
Kashiwase discloses methods for removing a photoresist film
from a semiconductor substrate which involve wet (as well as dry)
processing techniques (e.g., see the Abstract). In the normal
wet method of the prior art, the semiconductor substrate or wafer
is immersed in a solution of sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide
for removal of the photoresist film and then is rinsed with ultra
pure water to remove any chemical solution attached on the
substrate or residue of the photoresist film (e.g., see lines 48-
68 in column 1 and lines 1-5 in column 2). In Kashiwase's
method, this normal wet method for removing photoresist film is
followed by immersing the substrate in a solution containing
2(...continued)
with such a claim grouping. It follows that, in assessing the
merits of the above-noted rejections, we will focus on sole
independent claim 7 with respect to the § 102 rejection and on
claim 12 with respect to the § 103 rejection. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(8) (2002).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007