Appeal 2007-0908
Application 10/152,077
(Reply Brief filed 13 November 2007 ("Reply Br."), at 10.)
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner finds that Figure 3 of Ueno shows a
turntable that moves the device past orifices that dispense water and gaseous
IPA. (Id.) Christenson argues that Ueno Figures 3 and 5 show that the
wafer is not moved past orifices that introduce separate flow because "[b]oth
rinsing nozzle 7 and replacing medium nozzle 8 are directed specifically to
the center of the wafer." (Reply Br. at 6, emphasis added.) The Examiner
did not explain his interpretation of Ueno Figure 3, and we do not disagree
with Christenson, with regard to nozzle 8. Although we note that nozzle 7
appears not to be centered, and hence the rotating wafer moves past that
orifice, claim 8 requires that the rotating wafer move past both the water
nozzle and the IPA nozzle. Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8.
However, Ueno Figure 10 and the accompanying text at col. 12, ll.
18-34, describe a modified apparatus and process in which rinse nozzle 7
and IPA nozzle 8 are moved outward from the center, "with the nozzle 7
going ahead of the nozzle 8, so that the pure water and IPA vapor are
essentially simultaneously supplied." (Ueno at 12:25-28; FF 36-37.) When
the nozzles are positioned as shown in Figure 10, the rotating turntable
moves the device or devices past both orifices. We find that his disclosure,
in combination with the other teachings of Ueno and Yoneda, establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness of the process covered by Christenson's
claim 8.
Independent claim 47 is similar to claim 1, but recites rotating the
substrate at a first rotational speed during the spraying of the rinse and a
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013