Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 for the manufacture of semiconductor devices or the like.”
2 (Roberts 2:66-3:2.)
3 33. In one embodiment, Roberts teaches that the pad may be made
4 by placing a solid or semi-solid insert in an enclosure and then
5 forcing a flowable material into the enclosure, thereby causing
6 the insert to be bonded to or within the flowable material after
7 solidification. (Roberts 3:62-65.)
8 34. Roberts teaches that the pad may be made from polyurethane.
9 (Roberts 5:10-61.)
10 35. Roberts further teaches that the pad may include abrasive
11 particles. (Roberts 5:34-36; 9:57-59.)
12 36. The Examiner found that Roberts’s pad has elastic modulus and
13 Shore D hardness values that significantly overlap those recited
14 in appealed claim 12. (Answer 3.)
15 37. That Roberts describes, with sufficient specificity, a pad having
16 an elastic modulus and a Shore D hardness within the claimed
17 ranges is not contested.
18 38. Nor does the Applicant contest that when Roberts’s pad is used
19 on Hasegawa’s wheel, the resulting wheel would not have the
20 specified elastic modulus and Shore D hardness.
21 39. Appealed claim 12 does not recite any limitation as to the
22 degree of abrasion or the manner in which “the load of the
23 abrasive wheel on the ceramic plate or the rigid composite
24 plate” is created.
25 40. According to well known scientific principles, the force or load
26 placed upon Hasegawa’s wheel by contact with the wafer
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013