Appeal No. 2004-1231
Application 09/481,224
Appellants argue that the additional limitation added to
independent claims 1 and 13 “not situated in a CMP apparatus” is
definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 or being properly supported by the
Appellants’ specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph,
therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art is improper. Brief at
page 10.
The Examiner argues at page 5 of the Answer:
AAPA clearly shows preconditioning a diamond disc. Assuming,
arguendo, that "off-line" means "not situated in a CMP
apparatus", it is determined that the location of the pre-
conditioning platform would be an obvious design expedient in
order to provide optimal machining and results.
We note that the Examiner has failed to specifically point out
which structure(s) of the prior art constitute(s) the pre-
conditioning platform. On the other hand, we find that the
admitted prior art shows the CMP apparatus for polishing
semiconductor wafers, not an apparatus for off-line conditioning a
conditioning disc. Appellants’ specification, pages 1-3. Assuming
arguendo that the admitted prior art teaches the pre-conditioning
platform, we fail to find Examiner’s arguments persuasive as to the
matter of the prior art leading one of ordinary skill in the art to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007