Appeal No. 2005-1086 4
Application No. 09/032,305
We do not agree.
We find that Fabry specifically teaches (Example 1, column 5, line 59 to column 6,
line 6) that:
Subsequent to a two-sided polishing carried out in the standard manner, a
hundred and fifty silicon wafers (diameter approximately 150 mn (100)
orientation) were first freed of polishing residues and then subjected to an
oxidative cleaning composed of two substeps in which a one-minute
treatment with approximately 0.6% by weight aqueous hydrofluoric acid was
followed by a ten-minute treatment in ammoniacal hydrogen peroxide
solution. These two substeps consequently corresponded essentially to
those of the so-called “RCA cleaning.” After final rising and drying, the
wafers had oxidized polished surfaces which had hydrophilic properties. A
water drop (drop volume approximately 10 µl) applied for the purpose of
testing to the center of a wafer drained off completely and consequently
revealed the strongly hydrophilic nature of the surface.
According to Hayashida (column 1, lines 33-45), the “RCA cleaning” method referred to in
Fabry includes initially removing residues from a wafer with an aqueous oxidative cleaning
solution2 (a solution containing ammonia, hydrogen peroxide and water) before subjecting
the wafer to the two additional oxidative cleaning steps specifically mentioned in Fabry.
Thus, we find that Fabry, as explained by Hayashida, necessarily employs an aqueous
oxidative cleaning solution to remove residues from a polished wafer (immediately after a
wafer has been polished) before subjecting the resulting polished wafer (freed of residue)
to additional oxidative cleaning steps.
2 This solution is encompassed by the claimed aqueous treatment agent solution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007