Appeal No. 2005-1108
Application No. 10/442,900
microns greater than the thickness of the plate to inhibit
removal of contaminating material (e.g., metal) from the plate
and resulting contamination of the wafer. While conceding that
Zhang does not teach this feature, the examiner nonetheless
submits that it would have been obvious
to select the thickness of the insert at about 20, 30
or 50 microns greater than the thickness of the plate
in order to extend the useful life of the plate as a
bigger gap is maintained between the plate and the
polishing pads during a polishing operation and to save
material and cost associated with the replacement of
the plate [answer, page 4].3
The examiner’s explanation fails to spell out whether the
proposed selection of the thickness of Zhang’s insert 39 to be
about 20, 30 or 50 microns greater than the thickness of the
plate/blank 32 would be achieved by increasing the thickness of
the insert, reducing the thickness of the plate/blank or some
combination of the two. Simply increasing the thickness of the
insert the requisite amount would make the insert thicker than
the target thickness of the wafer in direct contravention of
3
3 This rationale differs from that set forth in the final
rejection where the examiner stated that the proposed
modification to Zhang would have been obvious “since it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges
involved only routine skill in the art” (page 3). As this
reasoning is not restated in the answer, we assume that it has
been withdrawn by the examiner (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180,
181 (Bd. App. 1957)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007