Appeal 2006-3286
Application 10/422,290
We determine that the Examiner has clearly identified a reason or
motivation to combine the references, namely the advantage of providing
peripheral rounding of wafer edges to avoid the risk of wafer damage during
subsequent processing (Answer 3). We note that Appellant does not dispute
this teaching of Xin but merely argues that no rounding is evident in Figure
3 of Xin (Br. 7). However, we note that a reference is not limited to its
examples but is available for all that it discloses or suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ
518, 523 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, we determine that Xin teaches that
such rounding is conventional in this art (col. 1, ll. 20-23), and rounding is
specifically taught for the Xin process, although not shown (col. 4, ll. 1-4).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the determination of diameters in the
references as opposed to the diameters recited in the claims on appeal are
also not persuasive. Yamamoto specifically teaches that the protective tape
is cut into the “approximately same shape as the wafer” but may be cut into
a shape having a diameter larger than the outer diameter of the wafer (col. 8,
ll. 9-12; see also col. 2, ll. 45-47). We determine that Xin discloses that one
surface of the wafer can be covered with a protective tape, where the tape
adheres to the front surface of the wafer but can be removed after the back
surface damaging (thinning) operation (col. 5, ll. 4-10). We further
determine that Xin teaches that the protective layer covering the front
surface functions to “protect(s) the front surface against damaging
engagement” with the belt of the pressure jetting machine (or other
apparatus used for thinning) (col. 5, ll. 40-42). We thus determine that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to employ a tape
with a diameter that would accomplish the function desired for the tape
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013