Ex Parte He et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-1394                                                                             
                Application 10/301,464                                                                       


                      15.  A wafer pedestal of a CMP polisher comprising:                                    
                      a plate, said plate located in said CMP polisher;                                      
                      a non-adhesive edge-contact ring connected to said plate, said non-                    
                adhesive edge-contact ring also coupled to a face down wafer substantially                   
                in areas of said wafer not containing full active die.                                       
                      In addition to allegedly admitted prior art (APA) found in the                         
                Specification (1-2) and in drawing figures 1-3, the Examiner relies on the                   
                following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims:                 
                Babb    US 4,603,867  Aug. 5, 1986                                                           
                Nulman   US 5,460,703  Oct. 24, 1995                                                         
                Yang    US 6,537,143 B1  Mar. 25, 2003                                                       
                      Claims 5-8 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as                        
                being unpatentable over APA or Yang, each in view of Babb.  Claims 9-14                      
                and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as being unpatentable                      
                over APA or Yang, each in view of Babb and Nulman.                                           
                      We affirm.  Our reasoning follows:                                                     
                      Under 35 U.S.C.  103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a                 
                determination of:  (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the                       
                differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level              
                of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations.  See Graham v.               
                John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                      
                The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should                       
                “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the                
                art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed.  KSR Int’l Co. v.                        
                Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).  In                      

                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013