Appeal 2007-1684
Application 10/998,278
providing water vapor into the chamber, with the water vapor
exceeding about 100 C;
providing ozone gas into the chamber;
pressurizing the chamber to an above ambient pressure to increase
ozone gas concentration in the chamber, and with the ozone gas reacting
with a contaminant on the workpiec4e to clean the workpiece.
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of
obviousness:
DeGendt US 6,551,409 B1 Apr. 22, 2003
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method for cleaning a
workpiece, just as a wafer. The method entails placing the workpiece in a
chamber, heating the workpiece, providing water vapor and ozone gas into
the chamber, and pressurizing the chamber to an above ambient pressure to
increase the ozone gas concentration in the chamber.
All the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeGendt.
With the exception of claims 26 and 40, and claim 41, Appellant does
not set forth separate arguments for the claims on appeal. Accordingly, with
the noted exceptions, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are convinced that the Examiner has drawn the
proper legal conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013