Appeal 2007-0096
Application 09/969,467
Answer 3. The Examiner has also found that “Miki discloses using UV
light in combination with the steam/vapor to peel/remove resist (col. 17,
lines 5-7; col. 21, lines 11-12)”. Id.
Appellant does not contest the above-noted determinations of the
Examiner. Rather, Appellant seemingly contends that the applied
references, including Miki, would not have resulted, prima facie, in the
claimed method because the applied references do not teach an application
of UV irradiation to the vapor used in removing an organic substance from
the semiconductor, which application causes an increase in the number of
hydroxyl radicals in the vapor.
Thus, the issue raised in this appeal is: Whether the evidence
furnished by the Examiner is sufficient to establish, prima facie, the
unpatentability (obviousness) of the claimed method? More particularly,
the issue is: Whether the Examiner has established that the UV irradiation,
as taught by Miki, would have resulted, prima facie, in an increase in
hydroxyl radicals in the vapor/steam?
We answer these questions in the affirmative. Hence, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection.
Concerning the UV irradiation, Miki teaches that the UV lamp (24,
Fig. 4), a quartz window board (25, Fig. 4), and a steam supply nozzle (14,
Fig. 4) can be arranged in a position to effect peeling (removal) of resist
from a substrate (21, Fig. 4) with the steam sprayed onto the surface of the
substrate (21, Fig. 4). See, e.g., column 16, lines 3-37 of Miki. Miki
discloses that irradiation with the UV rays can occur while the steam
stripping of the resist is occurring at temperatures corresponding to those
claimed by Appellant (col. 3, ll. 36-47, col. 5, ll. 7-11, col. 11, ll. 8-27, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013