Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
and monitoring the electric current (a function of the
resistance) between the substrate and a surface of the
polishing member to determine a polish end. Appellants argue
that Kaanta does not teach monitoring the resistance between
the substrate and the surface of a polishing member (main
brief, pages 4-5). As noted by the examiner on page 3 of the
final rejection, the monitoring of the current (or lack
thereof) is a measure of the resistance. In fact, Kaanta
teaches that the invention can also be used to directly
monitor the resistivity of a conductive layer during the
polishing process (column 6, lines 22-24).
Accordingly, we find that Kaanta describes the subject
matter of claim 6 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
D. The Rejection in view of Olmer
The requirements of claims 1, 2 and 4 have been
previously discussed and are incorporated herein.
Olmer discloses a method for depositing a filler material
(silicon dioxide) over conductors of an integrated circuit
having a high aspect ratio (column 1, lines 8-12).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007