Appeal No. 2006-1360
Application No. 09/427,675
does not teach any relationship between the presence of a surfactant and improved selectivity.
Appellants refer to Dr. Jacquinot’s §1.132 Declaration (which is also discussed in the brief on
pages 20-21, e.g.) in support of this point.1
In view of the above, it is self-evident that the composition of Jacquinot is very different
from the composition of Grover. The examiner has not addressed these differences in
connection with his stated motivation to combine the references. That is, the examiner has not
explained, that, in spite of these differences, the surfactant used in Grover (used to improve the
within-wafer- nonuniformity of the wafers) would be also useful to improve the within-wafer-
nonuniformity of the wafers in the Jacquinot composition. It is the examiner’s burden to do so,
and he has not.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection.
II. CONCLUSION
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 17 through 40 as being obvious over Jacquinot in
view of Grover is reversed.
1 On pages 20-21 of the brief, appellants state that the Declaration shows that use of a surfactant is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007