Appeal 2007-2364
Application 09/879,613
citation omitted). However, limitations are not to be read from the
specification into the claims. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni,
158 F.3d 1243, 1248–49, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1120–21 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Once a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the burden
shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence of unexpected results.
In re Piasecki,745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We begin with two preliminary observations. First, although Skoufis
states that certain claims stand or fall separately from others, we find no
colorable argument that the claims are drawn to patentably distinct subject
matter other than the statements that certain limitations are not disclosed by
the references (FF 35 and 36). Accordingly, we shall analyze patentability
with regard to claim 9, which is reproduced supra, and we hold that
argument as to the separate patentability of subject matter as claimed
separately has been waived in this appeal. Second, we note that references
Onodera and Paley are prior art under 102(e), but that Skoufis has not
attempted to antedate these references. We hold such arguments also to
have been waived in this appeal.
As to the merits, the Examiner has not directed our attention to any
specific disclosures in Onodera of the use of deionized water, or low metal
ion or anionic "counts" at or below acceptable clean room values. Nor have
we found such disclosures. However, as shown by the article from the
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology cited supra (FF 29),
semiconductor wafer processing for integrated circuit manufacture is
notoriously sensitive to contamination by particulates and chemical
impurities. We do not find it credible—and we note that Skoufis has not
denied—that anyone skilled in the relevant arts would have used water that
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013