Appeal No. 2003-0512
Application 09/184,805
a second slurry until the “stop layer” (layer 12 + layer 18) is
substantially completely exposed.
We have also considered the possibility that the examiner
considers liner layer 12 alone as corresponding to either the
claimed filler layer or the claimed stop layer, and have arrived
at unsatisfactory results analogous to those set forth above.
Thus, regardless of how one attempts to read the claimed filler
layer and stop layer on the layers 10, 12 and 18 of Landers,
Landers fails to teach the particulars of either the first
polishing step or the second polishing step.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 20, 21 and 29 as being
unpatentable over Cadien in view of Landers.
Looking at the rejection of claims 2-19 as being
unpatentable over Cadien in view of Landers and further in view
of AAPA, the tertiary teachings of AAPA do not make up for the
deficiencies of Cadien and Landers discussed above. Therefore,
we also shall not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007