Appeal No. 2001-2184
Application 09/005,364
skill[ed] in the art that it would change the pressure applied to
the back of the wafer. Therefore, it would be obvious for one
skill[ed] in the art to apply a vacuum in order to hold the wafer
or to adjust the pressure during the polishing.” See id.
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must appear
to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the prior art
could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not sufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
Nakashiba teaches that the wafer is placed in recess 1a and
held against elastic pad 2 (col. 9, line 67 - col. 10, line 2).
Nakashiba does not indicate that there is any need for an
additional mechanism to hold the wafer. It reasonably appears,
therefore, that Nakashiba would have indicated to one of ordinary
skill in the art that Nakashiba’s wafer holding mechanism is an
alternative to Tanaka’s vacuum mechanism.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007