Appeal No. 2005-1086 5
Application No. 09/032,305
In any event, we find that Hayashida at least teaches removing residues or
contaminants from a wafer using an oxidative cleaning solution embraced by claim 14,
thus suggesting the desirability of using its oxidative cleaning solution for removing
residues from the polished wafer of the type exemplified in Fabry (immediately after
polishing). Moreover, we find that Lampert teaches adding an oxidizing agent either at the
end of the polishing step or to the alkaline polishing agent flowing on the wafer surface.
See column 1, lines 58-65.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that the applied prior art
references would have at least rendered the claimed process prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appellants argue that the claimed process reduces more defects in polished
wafers than those produced by one of the alternative embodiments described in Lampert
(adding an oxidizing agent to an alkaline polishing agent). See the Brief, pages 16-17 and
the Reply Brief, page 5. In support of this argument, the appellants refer to a Rule 132
declaration executed by Mr. Heinrich HENNHOFER, one of the inventors listed in this
application, on May 9, 2002. Id. It appears to be the appellants’ position that this
improved result is sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the examiner. Id. We do not agree.
In the first place, we find that Fabry necessarily or implicitly employs an aqueous
oxidative cleaning solution to remove residues from a polished wafer (immediately after the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007