Appeal No. 2004-1231
Application 09/481,224
specification.” BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services
Inc., 338 F.3d 1368, 1372, 67 USPQ2d 1692, 1694-1695 (Fed. Cir.
2003) citing Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236
F.3d 684, 692, 57 USPQ2d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565,
1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite since the Examiner does not
understand the meaning of the recitation “not situated in a CMP
apparatus” and what constitutes the apparatus. See page 4 of the
Answer.
We find that the recitation “not situated in a CMP apparatus”
means separate from and located outside of the CMP apparatus.
Thus, Appellants’ claims are setting forth an apparatus that is
separate and different from a CMP apparatus. Therefore, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph.
Finally, we now address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007