Appeal 2007-1684
Application 10/998,278
chamber, we fully concur with the Examiner that such is implicit in the
DeGendt disclosure of forming a thin condensation layer on the wafer.
Certainly, maintaining the surface of the wafer at a temperature lower than
the temperature of the water vapor would have been an obvious way of
forming the condensation layer on the wafer described by DeGendt. As for
separately argued claim 41, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that
spraying the steam into the chamber would have been an obvious way of
providing steam in the process of DeGendt. We observe that Appellant
bases no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness with respect
to separately argued claims 26, 40, and 41.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
cam
PERKINS COIE LL/SEMITOOL
P.O. BOX 1208
Seattle, WA 98111-1208
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013