Appeal No. 2002-1025 Page 9
Application No. 09/454,354
position we have taken above with regard to claim 19 applies equally here, that is, in
view of Brunelli’s recognition that the temperature to which the abrasive pad is heated is
dependent upon several recognized factors, we shall consider it to be a result-effective
variable, the determination of which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
The rejection of claims 20 and 25 therefore is sustained, along with the like
rejection of claims 21-23, which depend from claim 20 and which the appellants have
chosen to group therewith.
Claim 24, which depends from claim 22, specifies that the means for heating the
fixed abrasive element comprise channels through which hot fluid is passed. This claim
stands rejected on the basis of Brunelli and Duescher, taken further with Chiou, which
was cited for teaching such a feature in an apparatus for chemical-mechanical polishing
of wafers. The only argument presented by the appellants with regard to this rejection
was that Chiou failed to teach the temperature limitation that the appellants assert is not
taught by the combination of Brunelli and Deuscher (Brief, page 11). However, because
we do not share the appellants’ belief with regard to the claimed temperature, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 24.
Since the rationale we have advanced for affirming the rejection of claims 17-23
and 25, and the rejection of claim 24, differs from that set forth by the examiner, we
denominate these to be new rejections under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). In arriving at the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007