Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
determination that the Examiner did not err in his finding that Molnar I
anticipates Appellant’s claimed invention is supported by our claim
construction coupled with Molnar I’s disclosure of a method of planarizing
by using a finishing element (i.e., polishing pad) containing lubricant
(Molnar I, col. 29, ll. 12-23) and applying a finishing composition (e.g.,
slurry) containing abrasive particles to the surfaces being planarized (Molnar
I, col. 23, ll. 5-7).
Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Molnar I discloses both solid and liquid lubricants such that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have to “make fortuitous selections among a myriad of
possibilities” to arrive at the claimed invention (Br. 7). In fact, Molnar I
provides examples where a solid material (i.e., polytetrafluoroethylene in
particulate form) is used as the lubricant in the finishing element (i.e.,
polishing pad) (Molnar I, col. 29, ll. 21-23, 36-47, col. 30, ll. 1-4). Thus,
Molnar I expressly teaches using a solid lubricant in a polymer matrix of a
finishing element (i.e., polishing pad) such that no “fortuitous selections
among a myriad of possibilities” is required. Rather, the claim 17 method
would result by following Molnar I’s express teachings to use solid lubricant
in the finishing element (i.e., polishing pad).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection of argued claim 17 and non-argued claims 18, 19, 21-23, 28, 33,
and 36.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013