Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
col. 29, ll. 3-7). Molnar I concludes the passage by making a general
statement that “[s]upplying lubricant separately and independently of the
abrasive to the operative finishing interface is preferred because this
improves finishing control” (Molnar I, col. 29, ll. 8-11).
From these disclosures, we interpret Molnar I’s passage discussed
above as stating that the abrasive or lubricant may be contained either in the
slurry or the finishing element (i.e., polishing pad) so long as the abrasive
and lubricant are separately and independently supplied for improved
finishing control. In fact, Molnar I’s example at column 29, lines 3-7
includes an example where the finishing element (i.e., polishing pad)
contains the abrasives and the slurry contains the lubricant. Molnar I’s
passage further includes an example where the lubricant is contained in the
finishing element (i.e., polishing pad) (Molnar I, col. 28, ll. 50-53).
Therefore, the Examiner’s position that the lubricant and abrasive are
inherently separately supplied such that the lubricant is supplied in the
finishing element (i.e., polishing pad) and abrasive is supplied in the slurry is
supported by Molnar I’s disclosure.
In any event, in view of our construction of “consists essentially of”
noted above, whether the abrasive is separately supplied from the lubricant
is not critical to our finding that Molnar I anticipates Appellant’s claimed
invention. Rather, because we construe “consists essentially of” in
Appellant’s claims such that abrasives do not materially affect the basic and
novel characteristics of the claimed invention, Molnar I’s finishing element
may contain abrasives in addition to the solid lubricant and still meet
Appellant’s claim feature of a polishing pad that “consists essentially of a
polymeric matrix and solid lubricant particles.” Therefore, our
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013