Appeal No. 2004-1123
Application No. 09/933,503
(i.e, semiconductor wafers) stored therein. Unlike appellants,
we are of the opinion that the examiner has clearly established a
proper case of obviousness and has not engaged in hindsight
reconstruction based on appellants' disclosure and claims.
While it is true that Baseman does not specifically mention
removing moisture (water vapor) from the SMIF pod disclosed
therein, we are convinced that one of ordinary skill in the
semiconductor fabrication and processing arts would have readily
recognized that Baseman's broad reference to "chemical vapors"
and "environmental airborne vapors" that are everywhere in the
environment in low concentrations (col. 1, lines 40-43) encompass
water vapor, especially since appellants' own specification
(pages 6-7) indicates recognition in the art of particular
problems associated with the presence of moisture in SMIF pods
and notes attempts by IC process engineers to solve that problem.
In addition, the teachings in both Brooks and Roberson emphasize
the need in the semiconductor fabrication and storage art to
remove moisture, oxygen and other contaminants from SMIF pods and
to control relative humidity to levels of 0.1% or less. In that
regard, we also again note the disclosure in Baseman of
maintaining the relative vapor concentration (RVC) in a SMIF pod
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007