Appeal 2006-2444
Application 10/342,053
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all grounds of
rejection on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer as well as
those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Schilling and McClain
With regard to claim 1 on appeal, the Examiner finds that Schilling
discloses a method of forming a mixture of supercritical carbon dioxide and
liquid co-solvent and teaches applying this mixture to remove unwanted
material from a semiconductor substrate (Answer 2). The Examiner further
finds that Schilling does not expressly teach the use of a concentration of co-
solvent that exceeds the solubility of the co-solvent in the supercritical
carbon dioxide, thus forming a two-phase mixture (Answer 3). However,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in this art at the time of the invention to determine the optimum
concentration of co-solvent necessary to achieve effective cleaning (id.).
Additionally, the Examiner applies McClain as evidence that it was known
in this art to employ a co-solvent with supercritical carbon dioxide in
multiphase systems (id.). We note that Appellants present no specific
argument concerning McClain (see the Brief and Reply Brief in their
entirety).
Appellants argue that there is no rationale presented to modify the
single reference to Schilling, and that it would be counterintuitive to the
artisan to exceed the solubility of the co-solvent (Br. 10; Reply Br. 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007