Appeal No. 2006-1466
Application No. 10/230,838
stripper, including a gaseous component comprising ozone, an applicator, a source of a
chemical that forms gas (ozone) in said resist stripper, and a chemical output element in
communication with the source of said chemical, configured to direct said chemical
toward said wafer support such that the resist stripper substantially continuously moves
across a surface of a component on said wafer support (Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 2-3). We note that the examiner finds that the same component of the system of
Noda (33) acts as the applicator and chemical output element of the claimed system
(id.).
Appellant argues that Noda does not expressly or inherently describe any system
that includes a “chemical output element” as required by claim 1 on appeal (Brief, page
7; Reply Brief, page 3). Appellant notes that the embodiments of Figures 1, 4, 5, and 8
of Noda do not include a source of resist stripper including a gaseous component
(ozone)(Reply Brief, page 3). Appellant argues that the only remaining embodiments of
systems taught by Noda include a source of resist stripper and ozone and a supplier 30'
or 31' that could be considered an “applicator,” but none of the systems illustrated by
Noda includes a “chemical output element” configured to direct a chemical toward a
wafer support (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. In our review of the examiner’s
anticipation analysis, we must first correctly construe the claim language to define the
scope and meaning of any contested limitations. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). During examination proceedings,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007