Appeal 2007-1684
Application 10/998,278
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's factual determination that
DeGendt, like Appellant, discloses a method for cleaning a workpiece, such
as a wafer, comprising the steps of heating the workpiece, providing water
vapor and ozone gas into the chamber and effecting a reaction between the
ozone gas and contaminants to clean the workpiece. It is Appellant's
principal contention that DeGendt provides no teaching or suggestion of
pressurizing the chamber to an above ambient pressure. According to
Appellant, "there is no recognition of use of above ambient pressure in
processing" (Br. 4, second para.).
We do not subscribe to Appellant's position. As pointed out by the
Examiner, the claim 1 recitation "pressurizing the chamber to an above
ambient pressure" encompasses or embraces chamber pressures of only
slightly greater than ambient and, thereby, provides no patentable distinction
over the DeGendt disclosure that "[t]he pressure conditions in the tank are
about atmospheric conditions" (col. 5, ll. 35-36, emphases added). It can not
be gainsaid that there is no meaningful distinction between the "about
atmospheric" pressure of DeGendt, which would include, for example, 1.1
atmospheres, and the presently claimed "above ambient pressure," which
would also include 1.1 atmospheres.
Also, we find no error in the Examiner's reasoning that the elevated
temperatures disclosed by DeGendt would necessarily result in a chamber
pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure. DeGendt expressly teaches that
"high temperature results in more efficient cleaning" (col. 7, ll. 34-35), and it
is fundamental that an increase in temperature of a sealed chamber, such as
the one admittedly disclosed by DeGendt, necessarily results in an increase
in pressure. Also, like Appellant, DeGendt teaches that an increase in ozone
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013