Ex Parte Hagiwara - Page 13

              Appeal 2007-1017                                                                        
              Application 10/204,997                                                                  
          1          In one embodiment, Roberts teaches that the pad may be made by                   
          2   placing a solid or semi-solid insert in an enclosure and then forcing a                 
          3   flowable material into the enclosure, thereby causing the insert to be bonded           
          4   to or within the flowable material after solidification.  (FF33.)  Roberts              
          5   further teaches that the pad may be made from polyurethane, the same                    
          6   material disclosed as preferred for Applicant’s wheel, and that the pad may             
          7   include abrasive particles.  (FF27, 34-35.)  Additionally, the Examiner found           
          8   that Roberts’s pad has elastic modulus and Shore D hardness values that                 
          9   significantly overlap those recited in appealed claim 12.  (FF36.)  That                
         10   Roberts describes, with sufficient specificity, a pad having an elastic                 
         11   modulus and a Shore D hardness within the claimed ranges is not contested.              
         12   (FF37.)  Nor does Applicant dispute that, when Roberts’s pad is used on                 
         13   Hasegawa’s wheel, the resulting wheel would not have the elastic modulus                
         14   and Shore D hardness recited in appealed claim 12.  (FF38.)                             
         15          On this record, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of            
         16   appealed claim 12 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary                   
         17   skill in the art over the prior art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).           
         18   Even under a rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation               
         19   test, the Examiner’s rejection passes muster.  Specifically, the teachings of           
         20   Roberts would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use Roberts’s                
         21   polishing pad material to fabricate Hasegawa’s polishing member 13 with                 
         22   the reasonable expectation that polishing performance and predictability of             
         23   polishing performance would be improved as disclosed in Roberts, thus                   
         24   arriving at an apparatus encompassed by appealed claim 12.  Here,                       
         25   Applicant did not show that the modification of Hasegawa for the purpose of             
         26   achieving the benefits disclosed for Roberts polishing material would be                

                                                 13                                                   

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013