Appeal No. 2004-1357
Application 09/587,281
of claim 7 is whether Nishida meets the noted limitations in the
claim.
The passages reproduced above from pages 3 through 5 of the
Nishida translation and the spatial relationships depicted in
Nishida’s Figure 2B2 provide a sound basis for the examiner’s
finding that Nishida meets the limitations in claim 7 requiring
the steps of cutting the protecting sheet so that a diameter of
the protecting sheet is at least equal to a diameter of the level
part of the first face and smaller than an outer diameter of the
wafer, and removing the protecting sheet from at least part of
the chamfered inclined surface.
These same portions of the Nishida disclosure, considered
further in light of Nishida’s discussion of breakage suffered by
wafers ground by the conventional method from an original
thickness of 630 :m to a thickness of 400 :m, provide a
2
2 Although patent drawings typically are not working
drawings, things clearly shown in such drawings are not to be
disregarded. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072, 173 USPQ 25, 27
(CCPA 1972). A claimed invention may be anticipated by a
reference drawing since such is available for all that it teaches
a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843,
847, 181 USPQ 94, 97 (CCPA 1974).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007