Ex Parte Hagiwara - Page 16

               Appeal 2007-1017                                                                       
               Application 10/204,997                                                                 
          1    into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed                
          2    invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.             
          3    Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have           
          4    suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).                                    
          5         Applicant further contends that the prior art references “do not teach,           
          6    disclose or suggest that the abrasion amount can be determined by                      
          7    controlling the load placed upon the wheel to the plate.”  (Br. 5.)  According         
          8    to Applicant, Hasegawa “controls the abrasion amount by controlling the                
          9    position of the polishing wheel with respect to the surface being abraded”             
         10    and “merely pushes the wafer W against the polishing member 13.”  (Id.)                
         11    Furthermore, Applicant argues that “there is no disclosure or suggestion of            
         12    varying the pressure or load, based on the desired removal amount.”  (Br. 6.)          
         13         These contentions are also unavailing.  Appealed claim 12 does not                
         14    recite any degree of predetermined abrasion.  (FF39.)  Also, appealed claim            
         15    12 has been drafted broadly to read on an apparatus in which the load placed           
         16    upon the wheel is caused by a pushing force of the wafer against a stationary          
         17    wheel, as described in Hasegawa.  (FF39.)  The force or load placed upon               
         18    the wheel by contact with the wafer would be exactly the same regardless of            
         19    whether the wheel exerts a pushing force on a stationary wafer or the wafer            
         20    exerts the same magnitude of pushing force against a stationary wheel.                 
         21    (FF40.)  Applicant has not presented any evidence (e.g., sworn expert                  
         22    testimony) to the contrary.  (FF41.)  As to varying the load, the claim                
         23    language “system for contacting and controlling, during abrading...” does              
         24    not distinguish the apparatus of claim 12 over the prior art.  Hasegawa’s              
         25    pushing device appears to be fully capable of exerting varying forces.                 
         26    Applicant has not presented evidence (e.g., sworn expert testimony) to the             

                                                 16                                                   

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013