Appeal 2006-2444
Application 10/342,053
mixing art to disperse a liquid in a gas using a spray or droplet means to
form an evenly distributed mixture. Appellants’ argument is not well taken
since Subramaniam need not be directed to a cleaning mixture for removing
unwanted material from a semiconductor substrate, but need only be directed
to an improved method of distributing a liquid in a supercritical gas.
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
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we AFFIRM the
rejection of claims 2, 17, and 18 under § 103(a) over Schilling as evidenced
by McClain and further in view of Subramaniam.
C. Summary
The decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
TROP PRUNER & HU, PC
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON TX 77057-2631
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: November 3, 2007