Appeal 2006-2444 Application 10/342,053 With regard to claim 11, the Examiner finds that Schilling teaches exposing the substrate with a material to be removed to the cleaning mixture of supercritical carbon dioxide and the co-solvent, rinsing the substrate with organic solvents, and then re-exposing the substrate to the cleaning mixture (Answer 3). Appellants argue that Schilling does not teach any use of different rinse steps using different chemistries (Br. 11; Reply Br. 2). This argument is not well taken since claim 11 does not require different chemistries, but merely requires a second concentration that is the “same or different” from the first concentration (Answer 7). With regard to the limitations of claim 12 on appeal (Reply Br. 3), we agree with the Examiner that Schilling teaches the use of various cleaning and rinse cycles as necessary to remove the unwanted material (for cleaning) and trace amounts of remaining residue (for rinsing). See Schilling, ¶ [0016], [0017], [0057 – 0060], and [0071]. As discussed above, the use of slightly different concentrations in either the cleaning mixture or the rinse solution would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in this art to achieve similar results, absent any showing of criticality. For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007