Appeal 2006-2351
Application 10/645,493
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER MOLNAR I IN VIEW OF
CHIDDICK
DEPENDENT CLAIM 32
Claim 32 depends upon claim 17 and further recites that the “lubricant
particles comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting
of a binding agent, coupling agent or adhesive promoter” (claim 32).
For dependent claim 32, Appellant further argues that Molnar I and
Chiddick are not combinable since Chiddick does not relate to polymeric
compositions (Br. 9). Appellant additionally argues that there is no
motivation for “combining Chiddick with Molnar [I]” (Reply Br. 4). We
cannot agree with Appellant’s arguments.
Molnar I discloses a finishing element comprising solid lubricant
particles for finishing the surface of a semiconductor wafer (Molnar I, col.
22, ll. 22-25; col. 28, ll. 50-67; col. 29, ll. 1-11). Molnar I further discloses
that supplying an effective amount of lubricant reduces the coefficient of
friction between the workpiece surface and the finishing element finishing
surface such that unwanted surface damage is reduced (Molnar I, col. 23, ll.
52-55).
Chiddick discloses a solid lubricant along with a binding agent in
water medium (Chiddick, col. 1, ll. 9-13). Chiddick further discloses that
the “binding agent . . . helps to bind the lubricant and friction modifier to the
. . . surface [of the item being lubricated]” (Chiddick, col. 2, ll. 31-34).
From these disclosures, Molnar I and Chiddick are combinable
because one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Chiddick’s
disclosure to use a binding agent to adhere the lubricant to the surface being
treated with Molnar I’s process of finishing to better adhere the lubricant to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013