Appeal No. 2002-2210
Application 09/553,295
rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 10, filed April
17, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 5, 8 through 16, 18 through
26, 29 through 37, 39 through 42 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
on the basis of Christianson, the examiner directs us to Figures
1-2 and column 7, line 39 through column 31, line 47 of that
patent, urging that Christianson discloses the invention “except
for ‘to provide a final surface roughness Ra less than about
0.030 micrometer’” (answer, page 3). The examiner then makes the
following statements and assertions:
In col.20, lines 54-65, Christianson discloses the speeds of
the polishing machine. In col. 22, lines 63-67,
Christianson discloses the cut rate and Ra values of the
polishing result. However, Christianson does not
specifically disclose the claimed result. Thus, it would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007