Appeal No. 2001-2184
Application 09/005,364
slurry caused by water from the slurry being sucked into the
vacuum passages (col. 1, line 60 - col. 2, line 2; col. 6,
line 49 - col. 9, line 56).
The examiner argues that “[it} would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakashiba’s apparatus
in light of Tanaka’s apparatus by using the second mechanism to
supply the negative pressure along with the positive pressure
simultaneously across the second surface of the wafer because
according to Tanaka as well as it is well known to one skill[ed]
in the art that the negative pressure would hold the wafer during
the polishing process. This modification would produce the
claimed invention with an anticipation of an expected result”
(answer, page 4). The examiner also argues that “it is obvious
that it is essential to hold the wafer during the polishing
process, otherwise the wafer would get lose [sic] and is damaged
without a hold force. Tanaka certainly teaches the use of vacuum
to hold the wafer during polishing. Therefore, it would be
obvious for one [of] ordinary skill in the art to apply a vacuum
(negative pressure) to Nakashiba’s method of using different
positive forces in order to keep the wafer during the polishing
process” (answer, page 5). The examiner further argues that “[a]
vacuum on the back of the wafer would be apparently to one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007