Appeal No. 2000-2093 Page 7
Application No. 08/730,385
substrate. The substrate 12 may even be moved in a rotational direction
opposite to the direction of the polishing pad 22 if desired.
From this recitation it is clear that Shendon utilizes the rotational compensation assembly
not only to insure that the substrate doesn’t rotate with respect to the polishing pad when
such is desired, but also to cause such relative rotation to occur, when that is action
deemed necessary. It also is clear that this rotation of the substrate meets the claim
requirement of being independent, in that it is caused to occur by a mechanism that is
controllable independently of the rotation of the polishing pad and the orbiting mechanism.
This conclusion appears to be supported by the appellant’s statement on page 7 of the
Brief that in the Shendon system “the wafer could, perhaps unintentionally, be given some
independent rotational motion” (emphasis added). The appellant’s argument that, with
regard to the rotational motion of the wafer produced by Shendon, “it is reasonable to
assume that it is very limited (i.e. not fully independent) since its principal purpose is to
prevent rotation in the first place” is not persuasive since the language of claim 13 does
not preclude “limited” rotation and does not recite the rotation as being “fully independent,”
whatever that might mean as compared to “independent.”
It is our conclusion that all of the subject matter recited in claim 13 is disclosed or
taught by Shendon, and therefore we will sustain the rejection.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007