Appeal No. 2005-0277
Application No. 09/883,883
and returning them to the prior process operation for removing
residual layers, in response to the analysis of volatiles, meets
the claim requirement of "controlling a process flow operation."
One final point remains. Upon return of this application to
the examiner, the examiner should consider the propriety of a
rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular,
the examiner should consider the obviousness of controlling and
modifying an operational parameter of the fabrication process,
such as temperature or concentration of cleaning medium, in
response to an analysis that current parameters result in an
ineffective cleaning of the wafer. For instance, it would seem
that modifying the time to a longer period would improve the
cleaning operation.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5-9 is reversed, as is the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4. The examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claims 10-15 is affirmed. Accordingly,
the examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007