Appeal No. 2005-1139 7
Application No. 10/410,792
related to surface roughness. The examiner asserts that Brehm
teaches that his surfaces are smooth and free of scratches and
that the process does not alter the roughness of the rear side
compared with the previously polished state [answer, pages 4-7].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 37-40 for
essentially the reasons argued by the examiner in the answer. We
agree with the examiner that Kato teaches the advantages in
general of using wafers which have been mirror polished on both
sides. Thus, we also agree with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to perform the processing of Brehm on
a wafer that has already been mirror polished on both sides for
the advantages taught by Kato. Brehm teaches that his process
can be performed on wafers which are polished on both sides
[column 2, lines 36-37]. We also agree with the examiner that
Brehm teaches that his process does not alter the roughness of
the rear side compared with the previously polished state [column
7, lines 49-51]. Thus, it appears to us that if Brehm starts
with a wafer having mirror polished surfaces on both sides as
taught by Kato, the finished wafer will be a double-side mirror
polished semiconductor wafer containing extrinsic gettering sites
on the back surface as recited in the claims on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007