Ex Parte Stoeckgen et al - Page 10





                 Appeal No. 2003-0454                                                                                Page 10                     
                 Application No. 09/644,734                                                                                                      



                 value, urging said first conditioning surface into contact with said polishing pad and                                          

                 providing relative movement between said first conditioning surface and said pad."                                              



                         Since the examiner has not determined that it would have been obvious at the                                            

                 time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified                                           

                 Miyashita to arrive at the claimed invention, the examiner has not established a prima                                          

                 facie case of obviousness6 with respect to claims 38 to 44.  Accordingly, the decision of                                       

                 the examiner to reject claims 38 to 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                                                       



                 Claims 45 to 77                                                                                                                 

                         The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8 and 10) that the limitation that the second                                          

                 conditioning surface is comprised of a material that may be polished off more easily                                            

                 than the material to be polished off the substrate as recited in independent claims 45,                                         

                 58 and 69 is not taught by Miyashita.  The examiner has determined (answer, pp. 3-5)                                            

                 that this limitation is met by Miyashita.                                                                                       


                         6 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a                      
                 prima facie case of obviousness.  See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.                            
                 Cir. 1993).  A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the reference                         
                 teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references                     
                 before him to make the proposed combination or other modification.  See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,                           
                 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is                            
                 prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art                         
                 or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to                  
                 combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.  See In re Fine, 837                       
                 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                                                          








Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007