Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
15. A wafer pedestal of a CMP polisher comprising:
a plate, said plate located in said CMP polisher;
a non-adhesive edge-contact ring connected to said plate, said non-
adhesive edge-contact ring also coupled to a face down wafer substantially
in areas of said wafer not containing full active die.
In addition to allegedly admitted prior art (APA) found in the
Specification (1-2) and in drawing figures 1-3, the Examiner relies on the
following prior art references as evidence in rejecting the appealed claims:
Babb US 4,603,867 Aug. 5, 1986
Nulman US 5,460,703 Oct. 24, 1995
Yang US 6,537,143 B1 Mar. 25, 2003
Claims 5-8 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over APA or Yang, each in view of Babb. Claims 9-14
and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over APA or Yang, each in view of Babb and Nulman.
We affirm. Our reasoning follows:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit and should
“identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). In
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013