Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 10. Thus, appealed claim 12 does not contain any limitation as to
2 the orientation of the rotation of the wheel relative to the edge
3 of the plate to be abraded.
4 11. Applicant did not identify any part of the disclosure that would
5 indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art, or any evidence of
6 record (e.g., an exhibit or sworn expert testimony) that would
7 sufficiently demonstrate, that the term “abrading” as recited in
8 appealed claim 12 should be construed to exclude polishing.
9 12. Applicant failed to present any supporting evidence (e.g., sworn
10 declaration testimony or other documents) that the type of
11 “relative motion [of polishing device 11 and wafer W described
12 in Hasegawa] is well-known in the abrading and polishing art
13 for buffing, which is surface refinement, not abrading.” (Br. 4.)
14 13. Hasegawa describes an apparatus for mirror-polishing a
15 peripheral chamfered portion of a semiconductor wafer (the
16 wafer including a peripheral side surface, beveled surfaces
17 formed on front and back surfaces along the periphery of the
18 wafer, and rounded edges formed between the peripheral side
19 surface and each of the beveled surfaces). (Hasegawa 2:56-62.)
20 14. Thus, Hasegawa describes an apparatus for polishing an edge of
21 a semiconductor wafer (i.e., a semiconductor plate).
22 15. That Hasegawa’s semiconductor wafer is a “ceramic plate” or
23 “rigid composite plate” is not contested.
24 16. Hasegawa’s apparatus comprises a cylindrical rotary polishing
25 device comprising a first polishing portion having a first buff
26 that can be in contact with the peripheral side surface, a second
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013