Appeal No. 2006-1870 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/100,901
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215(CCPA 1980).” Appellants'
position (brief, page 4) is that Jefferies does not teach or
suggest the claimed density or hardness, and that Jefferies does
not teach or suggest abrasive grains in the felt.
It is asserted (id.) that Jefferies is non-analogous art,
which is required for reliance on a reference in a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It is argued that Jefferies has no
relation to polishing a semiconductor wafer because the reference
is directed to polishing means for dental restorative material in
a tooth. It is further argued that an artisan would recognize no
similarities between the materials that are polished in Jefferies
and in appellants’ claimed apparatus. Appellants reason that
because Jefferies is concerned with removing orthodontic resin
cement, an artisan in the dental arts would dismiss semiconductor
polishers as being too powerful, very likely dangerous and
perhaps toxic in dental polishing applications (brief, page 5).
It is further asserted (brief, page 6) that “In this way,
the preamble both states the purpose of Appellants’ invention and
limits the invention by requiring that it have operational
structure capable of carrying out that purpose.” Moreover,
appellants assert (id.) that the felt parameters of claim 1 are
not a matter of parameter optimization. It is argued that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007