Ex Parte Ronay - Page 8

                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