Ex parte Wong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 19, 1997

07904419 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 19, 1997)

Application for patent filed June 25, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MAN WONG
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3611
Application 07/904,4191
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before GARRIS, WEIFFENBACH and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 15 which are all of the claims in the
application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for vapor
phase wafer cleaning comprising the steps of combining hydrogen
fluoride, hydrogen chloride and water vapor, and exposing the
Appeal No. 95-3611
Application 07/904,419
2
wafer to the combined vapor. This appealed subject matter is
adequately illustrated by independent claim 1 which reads as
follows:
1. A method for vapor phase wafer cleaning, comprising
the steps of:
combining hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride and
water vapor; and
exposing the wafer to said combined vapor.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the rejections
before us are:
Tanaka 5,078,832 Jan. 7, 1992
Deal, ?Vapor-Phase Wafer Cleaning, Oxide Etching, and Thin Film
Growth?, Paper presented at First International Symposium on
Cleaning Technology in Semiconductor Device Manufacturing at the
Fall Meeting of The Electrochemical Society in Hollywood,
Florida, pages 1-8, October 15-20, 1989.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Deal.
Claims 2 through 15 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
being unpatentable over Deal in view of Tanaka.
We will not sustain either of these rejections.
Both of the rejections before us are pivotally founded upon
Appeal No. 95-3611
Application 07/904,419
3
the examiner’s position that ?figure 1 of the Deal reference
shows HCl connected to a gas line that can be used to combine HCl
with HF/H O? and accordingly that ?the use of HCl as part of an2
etching mixture is clearly anticipated or at least strongly
suggested by the Deal reference? (Answer, page 4). As fully
explained by the appellant in his Brief, however, Deal contains
utterly no teaching or suggestion of combining hydrogen fluoride
and hydrogen chloride as required by each of the claims on
appeal. Contrary to the examiner’s belief, the mere fact that
the apparatus shown in Figure 1 of this reference ?can be used to
combine HCl with HF/H O? (emphasis added) is inadequate to2
establish either anticipation or obviousness in relation to the
here claimed step of combining hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen
chloride. It is well settled with respect to obviousness (and a
fortiori anticipation) that the mere fact that the prior art
could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1965).
In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that we cannot
sustain the examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Deal. Moreover, since the examiner does not even
Appeal No. 95-3611
Application 07/904,419
4
allege that the deficiencies of this reference are supplied by
Tanaka, we also cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2
through 15 as being obvious over Deal in view of Tanaka.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3611
Application 07/904,419
5
Stanton C. Braden
Texas Instruments, Inc.
P.O. Box 655474
M/S 219
Dallas, TX 75265