Appeal 2007-1372
Application 10/423,283
statement that the finish-grinding composition of Orii, which is abrasive-
free, has no bearing on the instant rejection is clearly erroneous. While the
Examiner points to paragraphs 8 and 9 of Orii for teaching that "abrasive
slurries are conventional for magnetic head polishing" (Answer 6,
penultimate para.), the cited background section of Orii refers to selective
grinding of metallic film such as permalloy and Sendust, which do not
appear to comprise aluminum oxide (see previous para. 0007). Also, the
Background section of Orii does not establish that a "conventional free
abrasive slurry" comprises the presently claimed abrasive and phosphorus
compound for machining a substrate for comprising aluminum oxide.
The Examiner also sets for that "Sun teaches that the substrate can be
any suitable substrate such as a semiconductor substrate, a MEMS substrate,
a substrate that retains information in the electromagnetic form, a nickel
containing substrate, and a nickel phosphorus (NiP) substrate. (Col. 3, Lines
56-67)" (Answer 3, second para.). However, Appellants make the
compelling argument that "[a] substrate consisting essentially of aluminum
oxide is not a 'suitable substrate' when properly construed with respect to
Sun" (Reply Br. 3, last para.). Appellants further submit that "[a]luminum
oxide is an insulator and is not a semiconductor, nor is it capable of storing
data" (sentence bridging pages 3-4 of Reply Br.). Accordingly, in the face
of Appellants' argument, the Examiner has not established that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a suitable substrate for
the machining process of Sun would include Appellants' aluminum oxide.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013