Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
considering the question of the obviousness of the claimed invention in view
of the prior art relied upon, we are guided by the basic principle that the
question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the references expressly
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989) and In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). That is, the
question of obviousness cannot be approached on the basis that an artisan
having ordinary skill would have known only what they read in the
references, because such artisan is presumed to know something about the
art apart from what the references disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,
516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962). Nor is it necessary that suggestion
or motivation be found within the four corners of the references themselves.
Indeed, a conclusion of obviousness may be made from common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any
specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
The Examiner has determined that each of the APA and Yang
discloses or suggests a CMP polisher wafer pedestal including: (1) a plate
having ports for providing de-ionized water and a vacuum; (2) a non-
adhesive contact film connected to the plate for supporting (connecting with)
a wafer in a face down position (Answer 5-6: APA (Specification 1-2,
drawing Figures 1-3; Yang, Abstract, col. 3, ll. 5-24, col. 4, ll. 1-49, col. 5, l.
14- col. 7, l. 14). The Examiner has found that both the APA and Yang
further recognize that the film leaves a residue on a wafer held thereon as a
contaminant (id.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013