Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 would be exactly the same whether the wheel exerts a pushing
2 force on a stationary wafer or the wafer exerts the same
3 magnitude of pushing force against a stationary wheel.
4 41. Applicant has not presented any evidence (e.g., sworn expert
5 testimony) contrary to these well known scientific principles.
6 42. Applicant has not presented evidence (e.g., sworn expert
7 testimony) to show that varying the pushing force in Hasegawa
8 would not control the amount of abrasion.
9
10 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
11 “[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable
12 interpretation during patent prosecution.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324,
13 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
14 The factual inquiry into whether claimed subject matter would have
15 been obvious includes a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the
16 prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
17 art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations
18 (e.g., the problem solved) that may be indicia of (non)obviousness. Graham
19 v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
20
21 ANALYSIS
22 Applicant has argued the appealed claims as a single group. (Br. 4-6.)
23 Accordingly, we select claim 12 as representative and confine our discussion
24 to this single claim. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
25 Hasegawa describes an apparatus for mirror-polishing a
26 semiconductor wafer, wherein the apparatus includes a polishing device 11
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013