Appeal 2007-2417
Application 10/688,521
Instead, the Examiner discusses an embodiment of Verhaverbeke where a
supercritical fluid is used for drying a developed photoresist (at 0047) and
another embodiment of Verhaverbeke where a supercritical fluid is used to
cure a photoresist layer and acts to remove solvent (at 0060). Either of these
portions of Verhaverbeke would have made it obvious to use a supercritical
fluid in the process taught by Hallock.
Finally, Meagley argues that there is “no reason to plasticize in the
course of drying” by combining the plasticizer and the supercritical fluid.
(Reply Br. at 2). One skilled in the art would have had sufficient reason to
combine two known steps into one with the expectation of achieving the
results each step is said to produce. The claimed invention appears to
simply combine two known techniques, i.e., plasticizing and drying or
curing with a supercritical fluid, without achieving any unpredictable result.
We conclude that such a combination would have been obvious.
VI. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and
6-12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hallock in view of
Verhaverbeke et al. is AFFIRMED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013