Appeal 2007-1017
Application 10/204,997
1 beyond the ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l v.. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
2 1727, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)( “[I]f a technique has been used
3 to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
4 recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
5 technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
6 skill.”).
7 Applicant argues that Hasegawa’s polishing device 11 “is a buffing
8 pad, not intended to abrade the edge of wafer W.” (Br. 4.) According to
9 Applicant, the relative motion between Hasegawa’s polishing device 11 and
10 wafer W is parallel and that “[s]uch relative motion is well-known in the
11 abrading and polishing art for buffing, which is surface refinement, not
12 abrading.” (Id.) Applicant urges that, by contrast, Figure 2B of the
13 Specification shows that “[t]he wheel rotates perpendicular [sic,
14 perpendicularly] against the edge to be abraded.” (Br. 5.)
15 This contention is without merit. First, Applicant failed to present any
16 supporting evidence (e.g., sworn declaration testimony or other documents)
17 that “[s]uch relative motion is well-known in the abrading and polishing art
18 for buffing, which is surface refinement, not abrading.” The absence of
19 evidence is significant here because both Hasegawa and Roberts indicate
20 that the opposite is true. Specifically, Hasegawa expressly states that mirror-
21 polishing causes the uneven portions of the surface being polished to be
22 “worn out” (i.e., abraded). Also, Roberts teaches that the polishing pad is
23 useful for “planarizing” the substrates, which suggests that abrading occurs.
24 Mere attorney arguments or conclusory statements do not take the place of
25 evidence. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
26 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013