Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
Wolf within the meaning of § 102.
Appellants argue that Wolf only teaches the polishing of
small elevated features (i.e., spikes) and this is very
different from polishing the entire surface as recited in the
method of claim 1 (brief, page 2). However, appellants’
argument is not well taken since Wolf teaches that the CMP
process can remove such small elevated features “without
significantly thinning the oxide on the flat areas.” (page
238). It is clear from this passage that the CMP of Wolf is
accomplished across the entire wafer or substrate. Wolf
further evinces that polishing is across the entire wafer on
page 239 where Wolf notes that a problem is “maintaining
sufficient polishing-rate uniformity across the wafer” (see
the answer, page 5).
B. The Rejection in view of the admitted prior art
The scope of claim 1 has been discussed above. Claim 2
further limits the method of claim 1 by requiring the
“leveling” to be achieved by an additional deposition of the
filling material. Claims 4 and 5 are independent claims with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007