Appeal No. 2002-1025 Page 2
Application No. 09/454,354
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method of preconditioning a fixed abrasive
article (claims 1-16) and an apparatus for chemically-mechanically polishing a wafer
(claims 17-25). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 17, which have been reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Chiou et al. (Chiou) 5,873,769 Feb. 23, 1999
Brunelli 5,957,750 Sep. 28, 1999
Duescher 5,993,298 Nov. 30, 1999
Claims 1-23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brunelli in view of Duescher.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Brunelli in view of Duescher and Chiou.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 11) and the final rejection (Paper No. 6) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 12) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007