Appeal 2006-2759
Application 10/043,860
proceeding to the next and would have applied that teaching to the process
of Torii.
Turning now to the combined teachings of Torii, Miller and Manos,
we have considered Appellants’ arguments (Br. 14-17) with respect to the
combination of Torii and Miller above. We determine that the plain
language of claim 3 requires that the wet etching step include agitating the
wafer surface. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Torii would have
disclosed that the tungsten containing wafer is “immersed in an alkali
aqueous solution . . . for about 10 minutes” (Torii col. 3, ¶ 0033), and we
determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized from
Manos that agitating means can be added to that solution to increase the
efficiency of that step.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Torii and Miller and of Torii, Miller and Manos with
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1,
3 through 6, 9 through 13, 15 through 19 and 21 would have been obvious as
a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007