Appeal No. 2005-1139 5
Application No. 10/410,792
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
With respect to representative claim 37, the examiner finds
that Brehm teaches the same structure as claimed except that
Brehm does not expressly teach or suggest that the polished front
and rear sides of the wafer have mirror polished surfaces as
claimed. The examiner cites Kato as teaching a double side
silicon wafer polishing method in which both surfaces are mirror
polished. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to use a mirror polish finish as taught by Kato in
the wafer processing device of Brehm [answer, pages 3-4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007