Appeal No. 2006-1341
Application No. 09/782,180
(f) claims 13-16 over Tamaki in view of Takahashi.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at pages
5 and 6 of the principal brief, claims 6-12 stand or fall
together, as do claims 13-16.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 17 over
Toyosawa. There is no dispute that Toyosawa discloses a
semiconductor substrate having a back surface 36 that is ground
and polished to a mirror smooth surface (see appellants’
acknowledgment at page 7 of the principal brief, second
paragraph). While appellants maintain that the reference
disclosure does not suggest the physical structure of the claimed
abrased back surface, we find no meaningful distinction between
the mirror surface of the reference and that presently claimed,
and appellants have not explained any such distinction. Also, as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007