Appeal 2007-0908
Application 10/152,077
at 11:45-47; FF 33.) Thus, it would have been obvious to the ordinary
worker to follow the advice of Ueno and introduce N2 along with the IPA,
thereby meeting condition [3b] in full.
Christenson argues that the teachings of Yoneda cannot be combined
with those of Ueno. (Br. at 13.) These arguments have no force with
respect to the nitrogen purging operation, which "creates" an atmosphere.
Moreover, because we do not rely on Yoneda's teachings of providing N2
and IPA together, we need not and do not rule on the part of Christenson's
argument that the drying steps of Ueda cannot properly be combined with
Yoneda's drying steps.
As Christenson has not raised separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 9 and 10 in view of the additional teachings of Mohindra, nor of
claim 46 in view of the additional teachings of Hamaya, we need not and
shall not address them here.
Christenson has not argued that unexpected results rebut any prima
facie case of obviousness the Examiner may have established.
Accordingly, we have no difficulty concluding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found processes within the scope of Christenson's
claims 1-5, 9-11, 45, and 46 prima facie obvious over the combined
teachings Ueda and Yoneda.
Claim 8 reads:
The method of claim 1 wherein the one or more devices are
positioned on a turntable which moves the one or more devices
past orifices which introduce separate flows to the device
surfaces, one flow comprising gaseous isopropyl alcohol and
one flow comprising water.
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013