Appeal 2006-3286 Application 10/422,290 OPINION The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, the following facts: (1) Yamamoto discloses a semiconductor wafer having first and second flat surfaces of a first diameter (Answer 3); (2) Yamamoto discloses a thinning process where semiconductor material may be removed from the second wafer surface by grinding or etching until the intended thickness is achieved (id.); (3) Yamamoto teaches that a support tape having a second diameter may be used, where the second diameter is greater than the first diameter (id.); (4) Yamamoto does not disclose that the periphery between the wafer edges may be rounded (id.); and (5) Xin teaches that the peripheral edge of each wafer may first be rounded before further processing in order to reduce the risk of wafer damage during this processing (id.). It is well-established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor to combine these references. See Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “When relying on numerous references or a modification of prior art, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some suggestion to combine references or make the modification. [Citation omitted].” In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013