Appeal No. 1998-1667
Application No. 08/224,211
while claims 4 through 9 are objected to by the examiner as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
(see the Final Rejection dated Aug. 29, 1996, Paper No. 8,
page 4; and the Brief, pages 1-2).
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
method of polishing a ferroelectric material using a specified
acidic polishing solution and an external polishing member
(Brief, page 2). A copy of illustrative claim 1 is attached
as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Maniar 5,258,093 Nov. 2, 1993
Sandhu et al. (Sandhu) 5,318,927 Jun. 7, 1994
(U.S. filing date of Apr. 29, 1993)
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sandhu and Maniar (Answer, page 3). We
reverse this ground of rejection for reasons which follow.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Sandhu discloses a method of
polishing a ferroelectric material by use of an aqueous acidic
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007