Appeal 2006-2444
Application 10/342,053
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore, we AFFIRM the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11-16 under § 103(a) over Schilling as
evidenced by McClain.
B. The Rejection over Schilling, McClain, and Subramaniam
The Examiner applies Schilling and McClain as discussed above but
recognizes that these references do not expressly teach forming the cleaning
mixture by suspending droplets of the co-solvent in the supercritical carbon
dioxide (Answer 4-5). Therefore, the Examiner applies Subramaniam as
evidence that it was well known in the “chemical mixing art” to mix or
disperse a liquid in a gas using a spray or droplet means to form an evenly
distributed mixture (Answer 5). From these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to form suspended droplets of co-solvent in the
supercritical fluid cleaning mixture of Schilling in order to achieve an evenly
distributed mixture, as taught by Subramaniam (id.).
Appellants argue that Subramaniam does not disclose or suggest
forming liquid droplets for purposes of exposing a material to be removed
from a semiconductor surface but, instead, forms droplets to cause depletion
of the solvent in the droplets to obtain smaller particles from the solute
(Br. 12). Accordingly, Appellants argue that there is no reason to combine
the references (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s finding that it was well known in the chemical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007