Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
Appellant argues that Molnar II teaches away from the combination
with Molnar I because Molnar II “relates specifically to finishing elements
and requires the abrasive to be fixed in the finishing element” (Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant does not contest the reason provided by the Examiner for
combining Molnar II’s low-k porous dielectric with Molnar I’s finishing
process. Rather, Appellant makes the same argument she made with respect
to claim 17, namely, a pad that includes abrasives is excluded by the
language “consists essentially of” in claim 17. We are unpersuaded by this
argument regarding claim 17 for the reasons noted above.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of argued
claim 34 and non-argued claim 35 over Molnar I in view of Molnar II.
NON-ARGUED § 103(a) REJECTIONS
Appellant does not argue the following rejections of dependent claims
20, 27, 29, 30, and 31, which all depend on claim 17: (1) the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 20 over Molnar I in view of Nishida, (2) the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 27 over Molnar I in view of Murata, (3) the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 29 over Molnar I in view of Bajaj, and (4) the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 30 and 31 over Molnar I in view of Cook. Rather
Appellant bases the viability of these rejections on whether the § 102(b)
rejection of claim 17 is proper.
Like the Examiner, we find that Molnar I anticipates claim 17 for the
reasons indicated above. We affirm each of the following non-argued
rejections: (1) the § 103(a) rejection of claim 20 over Molnar I in view of
Nishida, (2) the § 103(a) rejection of claim 27 over Molnar I in view of
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013