Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
the semiconductor surface being treated so as to avoid unwanted surface
damage.
Regarding Appellant’s lack of motivation argument, Chiddick
provides motivation for combining his binding agent with Molnar I’s
lubricant used in the finishing process, namely, “to bind the lubricant and
friction modifier to the . . . surface” (Chiddick, col. 2, ll. 31-34).
Furthermore, a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the relevant
prior art teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the
teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the prior art as a
whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2006); cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claim 32 over Molnar I in view of Chiddick.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER MOLNAR I IN VIEW OF
MOLNAR II
CLAIM 34
Claim 34 depends upon independent claim 17 and further recites that
“the surface to be polished contains at least one low-k dielectric selected
from the group consisting [sic of] low-k porous dielectric, low-k non-porous
dielectric and air bridges and combinations thereof” (claim 34).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013