Appeal 2007-0824
Application 10/829,936
There is no dispute that Hasegawa, like Appellants, discloses a
polishing pad that may comprise the presently claimed cross-linked diene
elastomer and a polymer having an acid anhydride structure in amounts that
fall within the claimed ranges, namely, 70 to 99.9 mass% and 0.1 to 30
mass%, respectively. Also, Appellants acknowledge that Hasegawa "is an
example of a polishing pad which also discloses the importance of removal
rate and durability as polishing pad properties." (page 4 of principal Brief,
first sentence). The principal contention of Appellants is that component (B)
of Hasegawa need not be a polymer having an acid anhydride structure but,
rather, can be "a water-insoluble substance having at least one functional
group selected from the group consisting of carboxyl, amino, hydroxyl,
epoxy, sulfonic acid, and phosphoric acid groups" in an amount within the
range of 0.1 to 60 wt % (page 4 of principal Brief, second sentence).
Appellants point out that Hasegawa discloses only one example, Example 2,
in which component (B) contains an acidic group.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because, although it is
true that component (B) of Hasegawa is not necessarily a polymer having
acid anhydride structure, the Examiner promptly explains that Hasegawa
teaches that component (B) is preferably a polymer, and the reference
specifically names modified polymers such as maleic anhydride-modified
polyethylene and maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene (col. 3, ll. 31-
32). Also, while Hasegawa discloses that the amount of component (B) is
preferably 0.1 to 60 wt %, the reference expressly teaches that the amount is
"even more preferably 0.5 to 30 wt %" (col. 5, ll. 41-42). Hence, the most
preferable range of the three ranges disclosed by Hasegawa nearly coincides
with the claimed range of 0.1 to 30 mass%. Accordingly, we find that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013