Appeal No. 1998-1667
Application No. 08/224,211
The examiner has agreed that Sandhu does not explicitly
disclose or teach the use of an external polishing member
(Answer, page 5). The examiner has not submitted any
convincing evidence and/or reasoning to support the contention
that it is conventional in the CMP art to use an external
polishing member. Regardless, from the disclosure of Sandhu1
as a whole, we determine that the mechanical aspect of the CMP
in this reference was achieved by the use of solid polishing
particulates. See Sandhu at col. 3, ll. 17-23:
The chlorides and sulfates are removed by chemical-
mechanical polishing action in the same polishing
treatment. Such removal action might result in the
chemical aspect of the chemical-mechanical polishing
predominating, or in the mechanical aspect from
interaction with the slurry particles
predominating. (Emphasis added).
Sandhu also teaches, at col. 4, ll. 40-42:
The formed BaO and SrO material would then be
removed by the mechanical polishing and/or chemical
1We note that Cadien et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,516,346,
with an apparent filing date for the parent application of
Nov. 3, 1993, was cited in the Advisory Action dated Nov. 19,
1996, Paper No. 10, to show that CMP conventionally occurs
with a polishing pad but was specifically not relied upon in
the rejection in the examiner’s Answer (Answer, page 7).
Therefore we do not consider this reference as evidence of
obviousness in the rejection in this appeal. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007