Appeal No. 2006-1527
Application No. 10/302,223
to the separate patentability of those claims. Consequently, we
limit our discussion to one claim rejected over Breivogel in view
of Takahashi, i.e., claim 16. All other claims stand or fall
with that claim. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
The appellants acknowledge that Breivogel discloses the
appellants’ supporting base that moves a polishing platen in an
orbital motion during a polishing operation, and the appellants
incorporate Breivogel by reference (specification, page 7,
lines 26-28).
It is undisputed that Takahashi discloses the appellants’
front reference wafer carrier having the appellants’ flexible
membrane (deformable backing member 15) and the appellants’
pressurizable cavity (fluid chambers 2-4) (col. 4, lines 49-57;
col. 5, line 50; figure 3).
The appellants point out (brief, pages 6-7) the disclosure
in their specification that “[a]ppellant has discovered that when
a front-reference carrier is used with a conventional orbital
tool, i.e. one with a polishing pad supported by a diaphragm, the
resulting planarization process lacks stability” (page 3, lines
1-3). The appellants argue that the examiner’s combination of
Breivogel and Takahashi relied upon that disclosure and,
therefore, involved impermissible hindsight (brief, pages 6-7).
The appellants’ argument is not well taken because, first,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007