Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
and 4, are not well-founded. However, we concur with the
examiner that the subject matter of claims 10-15 is described by
Egermeier within the meaning of § 102.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection of claims
1, 2 and 5-9 over Egermeier. In essence, we are in complete
agreement with appellant that the reference fails to describe the
claimed step of "modifying an operational parameter of the
fabrication tool responsive to the result of the results of the
spectroscopic analysis." We simply find no merit in the
examiner's rationale that the claimed step "is equivalent to FIG.
1 and the computer system and residual gas analyzer in the
Egermeier disclosure" (page 7 of Answer, second paragraph).
Although Egermeier performs the claimed spectroscopic analysis of
the volatiles generated from the wafer, the reference does not
use this analysis to modify any operational parameter of the
fabrication tool. Rather, as urged by appellant, Egermeier
expressly teaches that, based on the results of the analysis, the
wafer is either passed onto a subsequent operation or rejected
and returned for further cleaning. See Egermeier at page 3,
paragraph [0025], and page 4, paragraph [0036]. Furthermore,
even if, as stated by the examiner, the Egermeier disclosure is
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007