Appeal No. 1998-1667
Application No. 08/224,211
or basic solution “and polishing the surface with a polishing
member.” (Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4). However, the
examiner later admits that Sandhu does not explicitly state
that the polishing member is used with the polishing solution
(Answer, page 5). The examiner’s position apparently is that
Sandhu discloses use of chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP)
and the use of an external polishing member is conventional in
CMP (Answer, pages 4-5). The examiner also notes that
appellants’ specification discloses application of the polish
to the surface with “a polishing wheel or the like in standard
manner,” further supporting the examiner’s position that
conventional polishing methods can be used for applying the
acidic polish recited in the claims on appeal (Answer, page 5,
citing the specification, page 3, ll. 21-23).
Appellants argue that the allegation by the examiner that
CMP conventionally uses an external polishing member is
contrary to the disclosure of Sandhu (Brief, page 3).
Appellants submit that the polishing takes place in Sandhu as
a result of the particulate in the cleaning solution and no
actual external polishing member is taught or suggested by any
of the applied references (id.). We agree.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007