Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
disclosed. The examiner concludes that “polishing is a form
of grinding and/or etching, and would have been an obvious
choice for the known manner [of planarizing] of Olmer.”
(answer, page 4). Appellants argue that “Olmer fails to teach
the techniques of the present invention, whereby the
semiconductor substrate is leveled over its entire surface.”
(brief, page 3).
However, it is clear that Olmer teaches planarization
whereby the semiconductor substrate is leveled over its entire
surface (see Figure 4 and column 5, line 62-column 6, line 5).
Appellants admit that it is known to accomplish smoothing by
using various polishing techniques (specification, page 1).
In fact, appellants’ definition of “polishing” is broad enough
to include the grinding or etching of Olmer (see the
specification, pages 1 and 2). Accordingly, it would have
been well within the ordinary skill in the art to use
polishing to accomplish the planarization of Olmer.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 2
and 4 under § 103 as unpatentable over Olmer is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007