Ex Parte Palsulich et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 1, 2009

10636021 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID A. PALSULICH and RONALD F. BALDNER
____________

Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 01, 2009
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 28 and 49 through 56 (Final
Office Action, mailed Oct. 17, 2006), the only claims pending in the above-
identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a method of removing
metallic films from surfaces of microfeature workpieces, e.g., semiconductor
wafers (Spec. 1, para. 0001 and Claims 1, 11, 19, and 49). Details of the
appealed subject matter are recited in representative claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 19,
and 49 reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (“Br.”),
filed March 30, 2008:
1. A method of processing a microfeature workpiece, comprising:

supporting a microfeature workpiece by an unheated support in an
interior of a processing chamber having a polymeric wall;

contacting a surface of the microfeature workpiece with an etchant
liquid, the polymeric wall of the processing chamber being substantially
non-reactive with the etchant liquid;

heating the etchant liquid by delivering radiation from a radiation
source through the polymeric wall of the processing chamber to heat the
etchant liquid, the polymeric wall being more transmissive of an operative
wavelength range of the radiation than the etchant liquid, thereby a
temperature of the etchant liquid is increased more rapidly than a
temperature of the polymeric wall;

controlling the radiation source to maintain a temperature of the
etchant liquid at or above a target process temperature to etch the surface of
the microfeature workpiece; and

removing the etched microfeature workpiece from the processing
chamber.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein a temperature of the wall of the
processing chamber is no greater than the temperature of the etchant liquid
when the etchant liquid is at or above the target process temperature.
2
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

10. The method of claim 1 wherein etching the surface of the
microfeature workpiece yields a resultant etchant, the method further
comprising determining at least one chemical property of the microfeature
workpiece by chemically analyzing the resultant etchant.

11. A method of processing a microfeature workpiece comprising:

positioning a microfeature workpiece on an unheated support in an
interior of a processing chamber, the processing chamber having a polymeric
wall with an inner surface;

enclosing the microfeature workpiece within the interior of the
processing chamber;

contacting a surface of the microfeature workpiece with an etchant
liquid at a first temperature, the etchant liquid being substantially non-
reactive with the inner surface of the processing chamber;

heating the etchant liquid from the first temperature to a second
temperature using an infrared heat source positioned entirely outside the
enclosed processing chamber and through the polymeric wall, the second
temperature being higher than the first temperature and the second
temperature promoting etching of a surface of the rnicrofeature workpiece,
the etchant liquid being more absorptive of radiation from the infrared heat
source than the polymeric wall, thereby the etchant liquid is heated more
rapidly than the polymeric wall of the processing chamber; and

etching the surface of the microfeature workpiece with the etchant
liquid at or above the second temperature.

19. A method of processing a microfeature workpiece, comprising:

supporting a microfeature workpiece with an unheated support in an
interior of a processing chamber having a polymeric wall;

contacting a surface of the microfeature workpiece with a processing
fluid;

3
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

delivering infrared radiation through the polymeric wall of the
processing chamber to heat the processing fluid from a first temperature to a
higher second temperature that promotes processing of the surface of the
microfeature workpiece, the polymeric wall being more infrared transparent
than the processing fluid, thereby the processing fluid is heated more rapidly
than the polymeric wall; and

maintaining a temperature of the processing fluid at or above the
second temperature for a process period to process the surface of the
microfeature workpiece, a temperature of the wall of the processing chamber
being no greater than the temperature of the processing fluid during the
process period.

49. A method of processing a microfeature workpiece, comprising:

supporting a microfeature workpiece in a processing chamber having
a wall constructed from a polymeric material;

contacting the microfeature workpiece with an etchant liquid, the
polymeric wall of the processing chamber being substantially non-reactive
with the etchant liquid;

increasing a temperature of the etchant liquid more rapidly than a
temperature of the polymeric wall by delivering radiation to the etchant
liquid from a radiation source and through the polymeric wall of the
processing chamber; and

controlling the radiation source to maintain a temperature of the
etchant liquid at or above a target process temperature to etch the
microfeature workpiece.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence to establish
unpatentability (Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed June 23, 2008, 2-3):
McNeilly US 5,762,755 Jun. 9, 1998
Tomita US 6,054,373 Apr. 25, 2000
Yokomizo US 6,399,517 B2 Jun. 4, 2002
4
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection set
forth by the Examiner (Br. 7 and Ans. 3 and 16):
(1) Claims 1 through 9, 11 through 17, 19 through 27 and 49
through 561 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Tomita and McNeilly2; and
(2) Claims 10, 18, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Tomita and Yokomizo.
In traversing the Examiner’s § 103 rejections, Appellants contend that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to employ the
polymeric material taught by McNeilly as part of the wafer cleaning
chamber in the wafer cleaning process of type suggested by Tomita (App.
Br. 8-12 and Reply Brief (“Reply Br”), filed September 10, 2008, 1-3).
Appellants also contend that such a combination would not result in the
claimed invention since McNeilly does not teach a wafer cleaning chamber
made with a polymeric material alone (App. Br. 12). Further, Appellants
separately argue the limitations of claims 6 and 49 (App. Br. 13-14).
According to Appellants, the collective teachings of Tomita and McNeilly

1 The Examiner inadvertently left out finally rejected claims 50 through 56
in the statement of rejection set forth in the Answer. As is apparent from
page 8 of the Appeal Brief and page 21 of the Examiner’s Answer, the
rejection of claims 50 through 56 is maintained.
2 With respect to the first ground of rejection, Appellants have grouped the
claims on appeal (Br. 8) as follows:
Group I. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, and 17;
Group II. Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, and 19-27; and
Group III. Claims 49-56.
Accordingly, for the purpose of this rejection, we limit our discussion to
claims 1, 6, and 49 pursuant to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

5
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

do not teach or suggest the temperature of a polymeric wall of the processing
chamber relative to the temperature of an etchant liquid (id). Finally,
Appellants contend that Tomita and Yokomizo do not teach or suggest
employing a processing chamber having a polymeric wall (App. Br. 15).

ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge
taught by McNeilly, would have been led to employ a polymeric wall in
forming the wafer cleaning and etching chamber of the type suggested by
Tomita? On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the collective teachings of Tomita and McNeilly would
have suggested the limitation “a temperature of the wall of the processing
chamber is no greater than the temperature of the etchant liquid when the
etchant liquid is at or above the target process temperature” recited in claim
6? On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the collective teachings of Tomita and McNeilly would
have suggested the limitation “increasing a temperature of the etchant liquid
more rapidly than a temperature of the polymeric wall by delivering
radiation to the etchant liquid from a radiation source and through the
polymeric wall of the processing chamber” recited in claim 49? On this
record, we answer this question in the negative.
Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the collective teachings of Tomita and Yokomizo would
6
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

have led one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a polymeric wall as part of
Tomita’s wafer cleaning and etching chamber? On this record, we answer
this question in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute that:
Tomita discloses a method of processing a
microfeature workpiece, comprising: supporting a
microfeature workpiece (23) by an unheated
support (22) in an interior of a processing chamber
(21) (column 7, lines 57-61 ; Figure
5); contacting a surface of the microfeature
workpiece (23) with an etchant liquid
(column 7, lines 65-67; column 8, lines 1-2);
heating the etchant liquid by delivering
radiation from a radiation source (24) through the
wall of the processing chamber to
heat the etchant liquid (column 4, lines 18-22);
controlling the radiation source to
maintain a temperature of the etchant liquid at or
above a target process temperature to
etch the surface of the microfeature workpiece
(column 8, lines 3-9). Although Tomita
does not expressly disclose the step of removing
the etched microfeature workpiece
(23) from the processing chamber (21), this step is
inherently present in the process. [(Compare Ans.
3 with App. Br. 8-12 and Reply Br. 1-4)]

2. Tomita teaches (col. 5, ll. 49-65) that:
In the case of cleaning silicon substrates, the
chemical agent has a boiling point of 200o C. or
7
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

higher. Preferably, the boiling point is 300o C. or
higher.
…
In the present invention, for example,
sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and a chemical
liquid obtained by adding fluoric acid to these may
be used.
The purpose of adding fluoric acid is to
remove a natural oxide film formed on the silicon
substrate by water and oxygen diffused in the
chemical liquid during cleaning. The
concentration of fluoric acid added in the chemical
liquid is, for example, about 0.1% or less.
The highest treatment temperature in the
case of the chemical agent is about 290o C. to 350o
C. for sulfuric acid and fluoric-acid-added sulfuric
acid and 213o C. for fluoric-acid-added phosphoric
acid.

3. Tomita teaches (col. 7, l. 57 to col. 8, l. 9) that:
The treatment apparatus according to the
third embodiment is characterized in that an
external infrared heater 24 directly heats a silicon
substrate 23 held in a quart beaker 21 by a quart
holder 22. The beaker 21 is filled with a chemical
liquid.
In the third embodiment, the silicon
substrate 23 is selectively heated by infrared rays
and the chemical liquid is heated by heat
conduction from the silicon substrate 23.
With such a configuration, although the
temperature in the silicon substrate 23 rises as a
result of infrared heating, the surface of the silicon
substrate 23 is cooled by the chemical liquid, so
that the temperature at the surface is lower than
that in the substrate.
Consequently, by controlling the output of the
infrared heater 23 and the flow rate of the chemical
8
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

agent suitably, heating can be done so that the
surface temperature of the silicon substrate 23 may
be lower than the boiling point of the chemical
liquid and the internal temperature of the silicon
substrate 23 may be higher than the boiling point
of the chemical liquid.

4. McNeilly teaches a vapor phase HF/H2O etching and/or
cleaning of a semiconductor wafer in which the wafer supported by a wafer
support ring within a chamber having a window assembly is heated by a
radiation source which passes through the window (col. 10, ll. 23-50).
5. McNeilly teaches (col. 12, ll. 37-59) that:
An important element of the apparatus is
window assembly 9. Assembly 9 comprises upper
window 10. and lower window 8. A two window
assembly is used to assure strength and to allow
lower window 8 to be formed from a corrosion
resistant material. Highly corrosive materials such
as HF vapor used for wafer etching require the use
of a window material which will not degrade.
Additionally, any material used in window
assembly 9 must necessarily allow the desired UV
and IR wavelengths to pass.
We have found it is most desirable to use as
lower window 8 an amorphous copolymer material
described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 4,754,009, the
entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein
by reference, which material is sold under the
trademark Teflon® AF by DuPont Polymer
Products Department, Wilmington, Del. This
material exhibits the necessary stability and
radiation passing characteristics required in the
present apparatus and process. A window
thickness of about ¼ inch is preferred. As upper
window 10, a ½ inch thick fused quartz available
from General Electrics quartz products division
9
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

(GE124), about 7 ½ inches in diameter is
preferred. Dynasil 5000 synthetic fused quartz can
also be used.

6. McNeilly teaches that the fused quartz window may be coated
with Teflon® FEP resin to protect the quartz from HF, chlorine and the like
(col. 13, ll. 8-21).
7. McNeilly emphasizes the importance of the window materials
being impervious to the corrosive etchants used and being essentially
transparent to UV and IR radiation at the wavelength typically used for
heating and etching (col. 13, ll. 22-31).
8. McNeilly exemplifies employing UV light source at low power
(225 to 250o C.) and high power (325 to 350o C.) to carry out the wafer
etching (col. 7, ll. 19-23 and col. 8, ll. 16-22).
9. Appellants also acknowledge at page 2 of the Reply Brief that
Teflon ® AF2400 (without any cooling means) has an upper use temperature
of 300oC.
10. The Examiner acknowledges that Yokomizo and Tomita do not
teach or suggest employing a processing chamber having a polymeric wall
(Ans. 8 and 23).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is well settled that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) is obligated to give claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of definitions
or otherwise found in the specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give claims their
10
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.
Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for
claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.”) (Citation omitted);
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO gives a
disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent
prosecution.”). The appropriate starting point for claim construction “is
always with the language of the asserted claim itself.” Comark Commc’ns,
Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
This longstanding broadest reasonable interpretation principle is based
on the notion that “during patent prosecution when claims can be amended,
ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored,
and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
That is, a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove
any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application. “Only in
this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322. “[A]s applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during
prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” ICON
Health, 496 F.3d at 1378-79.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
As stated in KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007):
11
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a
claim would have been prima facie obvious] need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would employ.

KSR also instructs that:
When there is a design need or market pressure to
solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known
options within his or her technical grasp. If this
leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product . . . of ordinary skill and common sense.

Id. at 421.

KSR explains
When a work is available in one field of endeavor,
design incentives and other market forces can
prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
different one. If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.

Id. at 417.

“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Id. at 415-16..
All of the disclosures in a prior art reference, including non-preferred
embodiments, “must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary
skill in the art.” In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966); See also Merck
12
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In
re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) (“[T]he fact that a specific
[embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all
disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, (CCPA 1969) (“[A]
reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not
only for what is indicated as preferred.”).
On appeal to this Board, Appellants must show that the Examiner
reversibly erred in finally rejecting the claims. Cf. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-986 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSES
Claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 13, 16 and 17:
There is no dispute that Tomita teaches or would have suggested the
microfeature workpiece (e.g., a silicon substrate) processing method recited
in claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 13, 16, and 17, except for employing
the claimed processing chamber having a polymeric wall. Appellants
contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to
employ the claimed processing chamber having a polymeric wall in the
method taught by Tomita. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, Tomita teaches heating a microfeature workpiece
in an etchant liquid-filled processing chamber made of quartz to at least 200o
C. or higher with a radiation source. Tomita teaches that any etching agent
having a boiling point of 200o C. or higher may be used to treat the
microfeature workpiece at a temperature below the boiling point of the
etchant liquid. Tomita emphasizes the importance of including fluoric acid
13
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

(HF) as part of the etchant liquid in removing a natural oxide film formed on
a silicon substrate and exemplifies sulfuric acid, fluoric-acid-added sulfuric
acid, and fluoric-acid-added phosphoric acid as its etching agent. Tomita
then goes on to teach (col. 5, ll. 61-65) that:
The highest treatment temperature in the
case of the chemical agent is about 290o C. to 350o
C. for sulfuric acid and fluoric-acid-added sulfuric
acid and 213o C. for fluoric-acid-added phosphoric
acid.

Although Tomita does not mention employing a quartz processing
chamber having a polymeric wall as required by the claims, McNeilly
teaches a vapor phase HF/H2O etching or cleaning of a semiconductor wafer
(microfeature workpiece) in a chamber. McNeilly, like Tomita, heats the
wafer (microfeature workpiece) held within the chamber via a radiation
source (UV and IR radiation). According to McNeilly, its chamber has
upper and lower windows and the UV or IR radiation passing through the
upper and lower windows heats the wafer. McNeilly teaches the importance
of constructing the lower window with materials impervious to the corrosive
etchants used and transparent to UV and IR radiation at the wavelengths
typically used for heating and etching. McNeilly exemplifies the lower
window made with Teflon® AF (polymer) impervious to the corrosive
etchants and teaches protecting the quartz with a polymer when HF is used
as an etchant. Appellants acknowledge that it was known that Teflon® AF
(polymer) can withstand a temperature as high as 300oC. McNeilly also
exemplifies employing UV light source at high power (325 to 350o C) with a
chamber having the above polymeric window.
14
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

Given the above teachings, we concur with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the polymeric
material (Teflon® AF) taught by McNeilly as a radiation source window or
an internal wall of the microfeature workpiece processing quartz chamber
taught by Tomita, with a reasonable expectation of successfully protecting
Tomita’s quartz chamber or quartz window portion from HF containing
etchants and successfully heating the microfeature workpiece in the etching
chamber with a radiation source. This is especially compelling in Tomita’s
cleaning and etching method involving the use of fluoric-acid-added
phosphoric acid since the polymeric material (Teflon® AF) impervious to
such HF etchant taught by McNeilly also permits the passage of UV and IR
radiation for heating the microfeature workpiece at a temperature of 325 to
350o C.
Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been led to employ the polymeric material taught by McNeilly in Tomita’s
quartz chamber since it restricts the use of Tomita’s chamber. In that regard,
Appellants refer to Tomita’s teaching that the highest treatment temperature
can be 290o C to 350o C when sulfuric acid is used. However, the fact
remains that the sulfuric acid treatment referred to is just one of the preferred
embodiments taught by Tomita. Tomita also teaches another preferred
embodiment in which the highest treatment temperature used is 213o C,
when fluoric-acid-added phosphoric acid is employed. Tomita further
teaches the importance of using fluoric acid (HF) to etch a natural oxide film
formed on a wafer. According to McNeilly, however, fluoric acid (HF) is
corrosive to the quartz window. McNeilly teaches that its polymeric
material used for its interior window protects the quartz window from the
15
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

HF containing etchant and allows the passage of a radiation source.
McNeilly also teaches that its polymeric material can be used with a
radiation source (UV light source) at high power (325 to 350o C).
Appellants also acknowledge that the polymeric material taught by McNeilly
can withstand a temperature up to 300o C.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the collective
teachings of Tomita and McNeilly would have been led to employ the
polymeric material taught by McNeilly for at least the fluoric-acid-added
phosphoric acid treatment taught by Tomita as a radiation window wall or an
interior wall of Tomita’s quartz chamber to protect the quartz chamber or its
radiation source quartz window from the HF containing etchant during the
heating and etching of the microfeature workpiece therein.
Appellants contend that the employment of the polymeric material
taught by McNeilly in Tomita’s chamber would not result in the claimed
processing chamber having a polymeric wall. According to Appellants, the
processing chamber suggested by Tomita and McNeilly is not entirely made
of a polymeric material. However, the plain language of the claims does not
require that the chamber be entirely made with a polymer material. Rather,
the claimed phrase “processing chamber having a polymeric wall,” as
broadly construed, includes either the polymeric window wall defining a
portion of the entire wall structure of the quartz chamber or the polymeric
interior wall of the quartz chamber suggested by the collective teachings of
Tomita and McNeilly.
It follows that Appellants have not identified any reversible error in
the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with
the knowledge of the effect of a HF containing etchant and a radiation
16
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

heating source with respect to the certain polymeric materials taught by
McNeilly, would have been led to employ such polymeric material in
forming the wafer cleaning and etching chamber of the type suggested in
Tomita.

Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 19 through 27, and 49 through 56:
Claim 6 requires “a temperature of the wall of the processing chamber
is no greater than the temperature of the etchant liquid when the etchant
liquid is at or above the target process temperature.” Claims 49 requires,
inter alia, “increasing a temperature of the etchant liquid more rapidly than a
temperature of the polymeric wall by delivering radiation to the etchant
liquid from a radiation source and through the polymeric wall of the
processing chamber.” Appellants contend that Tomita and McNeilly do not
teach or would not have suggested the above limitations recited in claims 6
and 49. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, both Tomita and McNeilly teach using a radiation
source to heat the microfeature workpiece in the chamber. According to
McNeilly, its polymeric and quartz windows permit the passage of UV and
IR radiation in order to heat the microfeature workpiece to a temperature as
high as 350o C. The microfeature workpiece, according to Tomita, in turn,
heats the etchant liquid which is inside of the chamber wall. In other words,
the chamber wall is not heated until the etchant liquid is sufficiently heated
so that it can transfer its heat to the chamber wall. Implicit in these
teachings is that the temperature of the wall of the processing chamber is no
greater than the temperature of the etchant liquid when the etchant liquid is
at or above the target process temperature as required by claim 6 and that the
17
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

temperature of the etchant liquid increases more rapidly than the temperature
of the polymeric wall via radiation passing through the polymeric wall of the
processing chamber containing the etchant liquid and the microfeature
workpiece as required by claim 49.
It follows that Appellants again have not identified any reversible
error in the Examiner’s determination that the collective teachings of Tomita
and McNeilly would have suggested the limitations in question recited in
claims 6 and 49.

Claims 10, 20, and 28:
The Examiner acknowledges that Tomita and Yokomizo do not teach
or suggest a processing chamber having a polymeric wall. The Examiner
refers to McNeilly for teaching a processing chamber having a polymeric
wall. However, the Examiner has not relied on McNeilly in rejecting claims
10, 20 and 28 on appeal. The Examiner has not included McNeilly in the
statement of rejection against claims 10, 20, and 28 set forth in the Final
Office action or the Answer. Accordingly, Appellants have shown
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 20, and 28.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of the claims on
appeal, except for claims 10, 20, and 28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

18
Appeal 2009-003244
Application 10/636,021

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ssl

PERKINS COIE LLP
PATENT-SEA
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
19