Appeal No. 2004-1357
Application 09/587,281
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 4 as being anticipated by Nishida.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by Nishida.
Claim 7 is somewhat similar in scope to claim 4. It
includes the limitations requiring the steps of cutting the
protecting sheet so that a diameter of the protecting sheet is at
least equal to a diameter of the level part of the first face and
smaller than an outer diameter of the wafer, and removing the
protecting sheet from at least part of the chamfered inclined
surface. Claim 7 does not include, however, the inclined angle
arranging step recited in claim 4. In its place, claim 7 sets
forth a limitation requiring the step of “removing a portion of
the second surface of the wafer by grinding to a predetermined
finishing thickness of the wafer after the cutting step without
grinding the protecting sheet.”
As framed and argued by the appellants (see pages 7 through
9 in the main brief and pages 4 through 6 in the reply brief),
the dispositive issue with regard to the anticipation rejection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007