Appeal 2006-1078
Application 09/425,694
chamber to another, with each reaction chamber containing a different reactive
chemical process fluid (col 5, ll. 35-60 and col. 5, ll. 17-50). The examiner notes that
electronic component precursors are exposed to at least two consecutive reactive
chemical process fluids without an intermediate step of rinsing with deionized water.
(col. 4, ll. 14-23 and col. 5, ll. 39-57). The examiner further directs us to Verhaverbeke’s
disclosure of a rinse fluid which may be DI water or a very dilute aqueous solution of a
hydrochloric acid. (col. 5, ll. 1-17).
According to the examiner:
Two modifications to Pirooz, which would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention in view of Verhaverbeke,
are necessary to arnive at appellant's invention. The first modification
requires the elimination of the rinsing with deionized water in the second
step. The second modification requires modifying the final step of rinsing
with DI water to include HCI.
More specifically, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Pirooz et al with
Verhaverbeke's method of sequential chemical processing without rinsing to increase
output and savings (col. 4, ll 15-25). The examiner further asserts that it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
Pirooz’ final rinsing step with Verhaverbeke's aqueous solution of HCI to prevent metal
deposition (:522 col. 5, ll. 5-15).
In determining obviousness, the relevant inquiry is “[would] an artisan of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention, confronted by the same problems as the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007