Appeal 2007-0236
Application 09/934,474
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19
which are directed to the Figure 7 embodiment. However, we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 which are
directed to the Figure 8 embodiment.
Murphy discloses an apparatus and method for polishing
semiconductor wafers with a polishing solution comprising the here claimed
ingredients wherein the ingredients are separately dispensed onto the
polishing pad where they are mixed together at the point of use (col. 2, ll.
17-46). Murphy teaches a number of advantages such as improved control
as a result of separately supplying the ingredients and mixing them at (or just
prior to) the point of use (col. 2, ll. 38-46; col. 6, ll. 4-26). Although these
ingredients are separately dispensed onto the polishing pad, there is no
teaching that the dispensing is in the form of a sprayed mist as required by
independent claim 2 (and the other independent claims on appeal).
Chamberlin teaches an apparatus and method for polishing
semiconductor wafers wherein the polishing solution is sprayed as a mist
onto the polishing pad (Abstract; col. 5, ll. 49-51). Chamberlin teaches that
his spraying technique results in several advantages such as effective
polishing with a smaller volume of solution and improved surface
uniformity (col. 6, ll. 12-23).
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for one with
ordinary skill in this art to separately dispense Murphy's polishing solution
from the apparatus and method claims representing the Figure 7
embodiment.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013