Ex Parte Schultz et al - Page 2



           Appeal No. 2006-1527                                                                     
           Application No. 10/302,223                                                               
                       a front reference wafer carrier comprising:                                  
                             a rotationally mounted carrier body having an                          
                 upper and a lower surface;                                                         
                             a flexible membrane comprising a first surface for                     
                 pressing the wafer against the polishing pad while the solid                       
                 polishing platen moves in an orbital motion and a second                           
                 surface facing the lower surface of the carrier body and                           
                 defining a pressurizable cavity between the carrier body and                       
                 the second surface.                                                                
                                         THE REFERENCES                                             
           Breivogel et al. (Breivogel)      5,554,064      Sep. 10, 1996                           
           Hoshizaki et al. (Hoshizaki)      5,908,530      Jun.  1, 1999                           
           Takahashi                         6,135,858      Oct. 24, 2000                           
           (filed Jul.  1, 1998)                                                                    
           Inaba                             6,139,409      Oct. 31, 2000                           
           (filed Jun.  1, 1999)                                                                    
                                         THE REJECTIONS                                             
                 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:                        
           claims 16-22, 24, 26, 27 and 29-33 over Breivogel in view of                             
           Takahashi; claim 23 over Breivogel in view of Takahashi and                              
           Inaba; and claim 28 over Breivogel in view of Takahashi and                              
           Hoshizaki.                                                                               
                                             OPINION                                                
                 We affirm the aforementioned rejections.                                           
                 In the rejection over Breivogel in view of Takahashi the                           
           appellants do not address any particular claim and, even though                          
           an additional reference is applied to each of dependent claims 23                        
           and 28, the appellants do not provide a substantive argument as                          
                                                 2                                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007