Appeal No. 2006-0363
Application No. 09/022,834
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Stanford et al. (Stanford) 5,244,000 Sep. 14, 1993
Kashiwase et al. (Kashiwase) 5,378,317 Jan. 3, 1995
Sehested et al. “Decomposition of Ozone in Aqueous Acetic Acid
Solutions (pH 0-4),” J. Phys. Chem., 96(2), pp. 1005-09 (1992).
Kern, “Future Needs of Processing Chemicals,” Handbook of
Semiconductor Wafer Cleaning Technology, pp. 599-01 (1993).
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for
removing organic contaminants from a substrate. The method
involves contacting the substrate with a solution of water, ozone
and a scavenger additive, such as a carboxylic acid, a phosphonic
acid and salts thereof.
Appealed claims 27, 28, 30-32, 34-39, 41-43, 48, 49, 51-54,
57 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kashiwase in view of Sehested. Claims 33, 47
and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in
view of Kern, whereas claims 29, 44-46, 50, 58 and 59 stand
rejected under Section 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kashiwase in view of Sehested, Kern and Stanford.
Appellants submit at page 2 of the principal brief that
“[t]he claims stand or fall together as a single group for the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007