Appeal No. 2002-0003 Application No. 09/056,794 polishing are interchangeable processes and relies on the teachings of Iijima to evidence this interchangeability. Additionally, the examiner maintains that appellant’s specification “hinted” of this well-known interchangeability of RIE and chemical mechanical polishing to flatten conductive layers. Appellant disagrees with the examiner’s conclusion. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant and find that the examiner’s conclusion is based upon speculation. While the examiner has referred to the teachings in Iijima, we do not find these teachings to teach an interchangeability of RIE and chemical mechanical polishing to flatten conductive layers as maintained by the examiner. Therefore, we cannot agree with the examiner that Iijima would have suggested the use of chemical mechanical polishing in place of the use of RIE to flatten conductive layers as taught by Suwanai. Since Iijima does not remedy the deficiency in Suwanai as admitted by the examiner, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 11,13 and 14. Similarly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 15, 16 and 18 which contain similar limitations and dependent claim 17. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007