Appeal No. 2006-0629 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/668,021
that Lin depicts only wafer polishing components and does not
depict any conditioner components. Appellants point to various
portions of Lim to support their position that Lim provides
pressure sensing of the wafer surface, and assert that Lin
describes pressure sensing in regard to a wafer, and not a
conditioner. Appellants dispute (id.) the examiner’s assertion
that a conditioner falls under the definition of “pressure
related components” because Lin defines pressure related
components as detecting pressure distribution on a wafer surface.
Appellants add (brief, page 5) that there is no way that Lin
could detect pressure distribution on a wafer surface by
measuring the pressure on a conditioner, as claimed.
Turning to the Berman reference, relied upon by the examiner
to support the examiner’s finding of inherency in Lin, appellants
argue (id.) that it is very evident from figure 1 of Berman that
the wafer polishing subsystem and the conditioner subsystem of a
chemical mechanical polisher are separate systems.
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that Lin’s
disclosure (col. 3, lines 37-42) supports the examiner’s position
that Lin does not limit his inventive method to only the
described embodiment, but to any “pressure related component”
that would be part of a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007