Appeal No. 2006-0312
Application No. 10/145,171
(a) claims 10-13, 15, 16 and 18-22 over the admitted
prior art in view of JP ‘790 and either JP ‘885 or JP ‘506,
(b) claim 14 over the references cited in (a) above
further in view of JP ‘480, and
(c) claim 17 over the admitted prior art in view of JP
‘790 and either JP ‘885 or JP ‘506, further in view of JP
‘855.
Appellants have not separately argued any particular claim
on appeal. Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected
by the examiner stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete
agreement with the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application
of the prior art, as well as his thorough disposition of the
arguments raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the
examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
JP ‘790 discloses, like appellants, an apparatus that treats
semiconductor wafers by grinding a back surface to reduce
the thickness and feeding ionized gas into the chamber when
grinding takes place. JP ‘790 effects the ionized environment
during grinding to prevent the build-up of particulate material
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007