Ex Parte Sekiya et al - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2006-1870                                       Παγε 2                          
         Application No. 10/100,901                                                                 

                                    BACKGROUND                                                      
              The appellants’ invention relates to a polishing tool and                             
         method, and an apparatus for using the tool (specification, page                           
         1).                                                                                        
         Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is reproduced as                           
         follows:                                                                                   
                   A polishing tool for polishing a back side of a                                  
              semiconductor wafer to remove processing distortion caused                            
              by grinding of the back side, said tool comprising:                                   
                   a support member; and                                                            
                   polishing means fixed to the support member, and                                 
                   wherein the polishing means is composed of felt having                           
                   a density of 0.20 g/cm3 or more and a hardness of 30 or                          
                   more, and abrasive grains dispersed in the felt.                                 
              The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                 
         examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                             
         Jefferies et al.     5,369,916   Dec. 6, 1994                                              
              (Jefferies)                                                                           
         James et al. (James)        6,069,080   May 30, 2000                                       
              Claims 1-6, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                          
         as being unpatentable over Jefferies.                                                      
              Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                             
         unpatentable over Jefferies in view of James.                                              















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007