Appeal No. 2005-1459
Application No. 09/950,612
valid (35 U.S.C. § 282 (1999)) and the burden of proof is with
appellants to establish that the disclosure of Robinson is non-
enabling. Appellants have not attempted, much less met, this
burden. We additionally note that the disclosure and teachings
of Robinson are not restricted to the specification disclosure
but also encompass the claims. Finally, we note that appellants
admit that the “patent literature is replete with references to
CMP processes reciting the use of a slurry including an inorganic
metal oxide abrasive material selected from the group consisting
of alumina, titania, zirconia, germania, silica, ceria and
mixtures thereof” (specification, page 5, underlining added).
Accordingly, the concept of using mixtures of abrasive inorganic
metal oxides in CMP slurries was known to one of ordinary skill
in this art. See LeGrice, 301 F.2d at 937, 133 USPQ at 372.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation which has not been adequately rebutted by
appellants. Therefore we affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under section 102(b) over Robinson.
C. The Rejection based on Section 103(a)
The examiner finds that Robinson fails to specify the ratio
and mean primary particle size of the two or more inorganic metal
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007