Appeal No. 1997-3784
Application 08/495,297
with, the Wiand ‘795 pad already has channels or recesses
between its abrading protrusions. Moreover, Wiand’s
peripheral lip portion 16 would effectively thwart any
scavenging effect attributable to such channels/recesses. Of
course, due to the presence of the peripheral lip portion 16,
Wiand’s pad, even if modified in view of Maran as proposed by
the examiner, would still not respond to the limitations in
claims 1 and 13 requiring the recessed areas to extend around
the periphery of the substrate.
Hence, the combined teachings of Wiand ‘795 and Maran do
not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between
the subject matter recited in independent claims 1 and 13 and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 3 through 8, 26 and 27,
as being unpatentable over Wiand ‘795 in view of Maran.
Inasmuch as the examiner’s respective applications of
Drake, Berg, Gardner, Wiand ‘249 and Stout do not cure the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007