Appeal 2006-2444
Application 10/342,053
(Answer 4). The Examiner recognizes that Schilling fails to explicitly teach
re-exposing the substrate to the cleaning mixture at a concentration different
than that used for the first exposure (id.). However, the Examiner finds that
Schilling teaches the use of various chemistries in both the rinsing and
cleaning processes (id.). From these findings, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to re-expose the
substrate using the same or different chemistry or concentration in order to
remove the unwanted material on the substrate (id.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s citation of Fig. 8 and paragraph
59 from Schilling discloses nothing about concentrations (Br. 11).
Appellants submit that the Examiner does not address the limitations of
claim 8 (Reply Br. 2).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We determine that
the Examiner has adequately addressed the limitations of claim 8 on appeal
in the Answer (Answer 4 and 6). We find that Schilling is replete with
teachings to re-expose the substrate to the cleaning mixture until the
unwanted material is removed from the substrate (e.g., p. 2, ¶ [0016]). We
find that Appellants have not defined the term “different” in claim 8 on
appeal and, thus, this term includes concentrations which differ only by a
miniscule amount. As discussed above, employing a step at a concentration
which may be only slightly different has been held to be prima facie
obvious, with the expectation of similar results, absent a showing of
criticality. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, supra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007