Appeal No. 2000-2093 Page 3
Application No. 08/730,385
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 22) and the final rejection (Paper No. 17) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 21) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus for polishing a
silicon wafer. In the course of the invention, three motions act on the wafer, which is held
on a wafer holder. The first motion is provided by a platen that has a polishing pad on its
surface and which rotates with respect to the wafer as polishing slurry is deposited on the
pad. The second motion is provided by rotating the wafer holder while pressing the wafer
mounted thereon against the pad on the rotating platen. The third motion results from
mounting the rotatable wafer holder on a crank and then rotating the crank to cause the
wafer holder to orbit with respect to the rotating platen.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007