Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 Roberts et al. (Roberts) US 6,217,434 B1 Apr. 17, 20011
2
3 Hasegawa is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); Roberts
4 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
5 The Examiner found that Hasegawa describes each and every element
6 of appealed claim 12, “except for disclosing the properties of the polishing
7 device.” (Answer 3.) The Examiner further found that Roberts teaches
8 resin-bonded abrasive polishing pads, which have elastic modulus and Shore
9 D hardness values that significantly overlap those recited in appealed claim
10 12, provide “advantageous hydrophilic polishing materials and innovative
11 surface topography and texture.” (Id., citing Roberts, abstract.) Based on
12 these findings, the Examiner held that one of ordinary skill in the art would
13 have found it obvious to modify the apparatus described in Hasegawa to
14 include Roberts’s resin-bonded abrasive polishing pad, thus arriving at an
15 apparatus encompassed by appealed claim 12. (Answer 4.)
16 Applicant, on the other hand, contends: (i) Hasegawa teaches a
17 “buffing pad, not intended to abrade the edge of wafer W [workpiece]”; (ii)
18 Hasegawa does not teach “a generally perpendicular relative motion” of the
19 wheel relative to the edge to be abraded, as shown in Figure 2 of the
20 application; (iii) Roberts “does not teach a resin-bonded abrasive wheel
21 abrading the edge of a rigid brittle plate”; and (iv) the references “do not
1 Roberts issued from Application 09/465,566 filed on December 17,
1999, which is a continuation of Application 09/054,948 filed on April 3,
1998 (now United States Patent 6,022,268). It also claims priority to
provisional applications 60/043,404 and 60/049,440, filed on April 4, 1997
and June 12, 1997, respectively.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013