Appeal No. 2004-1123
Application No. 09/933,503
Based on the collective teachings of the patents discussed
above, the examiner has determined that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
appellants' invention was made to arrive at a SMIF pod and method
like that claimed by appellants. In particular, the examiner has
concluded (answer, page 3) that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants' invention
to utilize Silica Gel and interior liners in the semiconductor
storage pod of Baseman, given the teachings in Brooks and
Roberson that it is desirable in that environment to reduce water
vapor in the pod interior and keep relative humidity at "desired
levels" as low as 0.1% or less, and the teaching in Parikh of
using inner liners in such SMIF pods to seal and further protect
the semiconductor wafers therein from contamination.
We concur in the examiner's assessment of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and again
highlight that the Baseman patent itself teaches (col. 10, lines
25-32 and claim 1) that a vapor removal element which maintains
the relative vapor concentration (RVC) in a SMIF pod enclosure
"at ten percent (10%) or less" is desirable and inhibits the
formation of contaminating layers on the vapor sensitive products
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007