Ex Parte Hagiwara - Page 15

               Appeal 2007-1017                                                                       
               Application 10/204,997                                                                 
          1          Second, appealed claim 12 lacks any discernible limitation that would            
          2    exclude the type of relative motion disclosed for Hasegawa’s polishing                 
          3    device 11 and wafer W.  On this issue, we note that Applicant belatedly                
          4    attempted to amend claim 12 to recite that the abrasive wheel rotates “in a            
          5    direction perpendicular to the edge to be abraded,” but this amendment was             
          6    denied entry.  (FF8-10.)  While Applicant refers to Figure 2B of the                   
          7    Specification, this is merely one embodiment of an invention that is claimed           
          8    to the broadest possible extent possible, as evidenced by Applicant’s own              
          9    notice that the claim should not be “unduly limited to the illustrative                
         10    embodiments.”  (FF3-4.)  In any event, Applicant is wrong that the relative            
         11    motion between Hasegawa’s polishing device 11 and wafer W is “parallel.”               
         12    Hasegawa’s Figure 3, for example, shows that the orientation of an edge of             
         13    wafer W, 1a, is actually perpendicular to the polishing device 11.  (FF25.)            
         14    Moreover, appealed claim 12 is directed to an apparatus.  The relative                 
         15    motion of the wheel to a workpiece merely defines an intended use that has             
         16    not been shown to further limit the claimed apparatus.                                 
         17          Applicant argues that Roberts does not remedy the “deficiency” of                
         18    Hasegawa because “[i]t is the major surface of the pad of Roberts...and not            
         19    an outer peripheral edge, that is in contact with the plate being abraded.”            
         20    (Br. 5.)  We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner is                
         21    relying on the combined teachings of Hasegawa and Roberts.  Upon                       
         22    modification of Hasegawa in view of Roberts, an apparatus within the scope             
         23    of appealed claim 12 would have resulted because Hasegawa’s apparatus                  
         24    polishes an edge of the wafer.  (FF14, 21, 25).  In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,           
         25    425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not                    
         26    whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated               

                                                 15                                                   

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013