Appeal 2007-1684
Application 10/998,278
concentration near the surface of the wafer results in a better cleaning
efficiency at elevated temperatures (col. 7, ll. 13-16), which teaching
corresponds to the claimed step of pressurizing the chamber to increase the
ozone gas concentration. Manifestly, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that increasing the concentration of the ozone in the
chamber results in an increase in the chamber pressure, and that an obvious
way to increase the concentration is to increase the pressure of the ozone.
Appellant cites an article by Gale et al. “to demonstrate how the
claimed invention is viewed by others in the field”, and how the effective
pressure is described at page 2 of the article, last paragraph (see Br. 5,
second para.). However, the elevated pressures discussed in the art are not
recited in the appealed claims and, therefore, Appellant's argument is not
germane to the claimed subject matter.
Appellant also cites paragraphs [0047] and [0061] in the present
Specification as demonstrating unexpected results. However, the referenced
paragraphs of the Specification are hardly commensurate in scope with the
degree of protection sought by the appealed claims, which set no limit on the
minimum amount of pressure above atmospheric. See In re Grasselli,
713 F.2d 731, 742, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens,
622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Also, we note that
Specification paragraph [0047] makes no mention of chamber pressure,
whereas paragraph [0061] speaks of using steam at 15 psi and 126ºC but
does not specify the pressure maintained in the chamber during the cleaning
process.
Regarding the claim 26 recitation of maintaining the surface of the
wafer at a temperature below the temperature of the water vapor in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013