Ex Parte Bjelopavlic et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2005-1108                                                        
          Application No. 10/442,900                                                  
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10 through 12 and 20                  
          through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                 
          unpatentable over Zhang.                                                    
               Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Zhang in view of Desai.                                   
               Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed              
          November 16, 2004 and February 4, 2005) and the answer (mailed              
          December 16, 2004) for the respective positions of the appellants           
          and the examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.2                 
                                     DISCUSSION                                       
               Zhang, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a                   
          semiconductor wafer carrier used in an apparatus for removing               
          material from the front and back surfaces of a wafer by abrading            
          and/or chemical reaction.  The apparatus 23 includes an upper               
          platen 25, an upper polishing pad 29, a lower platen 27 and a               
          lower polishing pad 31.  The wafer carrier 21, which in use is              
          disposed between the polishing pads, comprises a circular metal             
          blank 32 having three openings 34 and three ring-shaped plastic             

               2 In the final rejection, claim 12 also stood rejected under           
          35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.  Upon               
          reconsideration, the examiner has withdrawn this rejection (see             
          page 2 in the answer).                                                      
                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007