Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
spectroscopic analysis of data generated from a sampling of the
volatiles, and either modifying an operational parameter of the
fabrication tool in response to the spectroscopic analysis
(claim 10), or controlling a process flow operation to reduce the
amount of residual material on the wafer in response to the
analysis (claim 10).
Appealed claims 1, 2 and 5-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Egermeier. Claims 3 and 4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Egermeier in view of Lee.
Appellant submits at page 4 of the principal brief that
"[c]laims 1-9 rise and fall together and claims 10-15 rise and
fall together, but claims 1-9 rise and fall separately from
claims 10-15." Accordingly, claims 2-9 stand or fall together
with claim 1 and claims 11-15 stand or fall together with
claim 10.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we are in
agreement with appellant that the examiner's § 102 rejection of
claims 1, 2 and 5-9, as well as the § 103 rejection of claims 3
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007