Appeal No. 2005-1139 6
Application No. 10/410,792
Appellants argue that the examiner’s position that Brehm’s
wafer does not have any additional damage on the back side of the
wafer is incorrect because of the presence of flat imprints and
pressure marks. Appellants also argue that the processes taught
by Brehm and Kato cannot be accomplished simultaneously.
Appellants argue that regardless of which of the processes is
performed first, the resultant wafer would be unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose [brief, pages 4-7].
The examiner responds that the claimed invention does not
exclude the presence of flat imprints or pressure marks that are
invisible to the naked eye. The examiner observes that if Brehm
were to start with wafers that had both sides mirror polished for
the advantages taught by Kato, then the processed wafers would
retain the mirror polish finish after the Brehm processing. The
examiner points out that Brehm teaches that his processing does
not affect the roughness of the rear side as a result of the
processing. The examiner also responds that the rejection
presumes that the process of Brehm is performed on mirror
polished wafers as taught by Kato. The examiner notes that it is
not unreasonable to interpret that mirror finish means a surface
quality that is capable of reflecting an image, and that
appellants’ specification indicates that a mirror finish is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007