Appeal No. 2005-1031
Application No. 09/998,073
an electromagnetic radiation source configured such that upon operation of said
electromagnetic radiation source, a beam produced thereby converges in said second region in
close proximity to, but not on, said workpiece surface to dissociate said gaseous constituent into
an activated species that chemically reacts with said workpiece surface.
The sole issue on appeal is whether claims 46-58 and 60-69 were properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Elliott et al.1,2
Grouping of claims
Claims 46 and 64 are the only independent claims in the application. According to
appellants, these claims do not stand or fall together. See Brief, p. 4. Therefore, for purposes of
this appeal, the patentability of claims 46 and 64 will be considered separately. Claims 47-58
and 60-63 stand or fall with the patentability of claim 46, and claims 65-69 stand or fall with the
patentability of claim 64. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003); 37 CFR § 41.67(c)(vii) (2004).
Discussion
A. Rejection of claims 46-58 and 60-63
Claims 46-58 and 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Elliott. Elliott discloses an apparatus for cleaning the surface of a substrate using a laser beam of
UV radiation. Specifically, Elliott discloses that foreign material may be removed from the
surface of a substrate by delivering to the foreign material laser energy which ablates the
1Appellants indicate that claims 62-63 and 66-68 are also objected to under 37 CFR
§ 1.75(c) and request that the objections be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is
indicated. See Brief, p. 2; MPEP § 706.01 (8th ed., Rev. 2, May 2004).
2U.S. Patent No. 5,669,979 granted on September 23, 1997, to Elliott et al. (hereinafter
"Elliott").
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007