Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 SEPTEMBER 2012

Prior Art Need Not Provide The Exact Method Of Optimization For Variable To Be "Result-Effective"

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In "In re Applied Materials, Inc.", the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in four separate "ex parte" reexaminations.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In In re Applied Materials, Inc., Nos. 11-1461, -1462, -1463, -1464 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in four separate ex parte reexaminations.

Applied Materials, Inc. ("Applied") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,921,855 ("the '855 patent"); 6,520,847 ("the '847 patent"); 6,699,115 ("the '115 patent"); and 6,824,455 ("the '455 patent"), which are directed to polishing pads with grooved patterns for chemical mechanical polishing systems.  Claims to the pads include dimensional measurements:  grooves having a depth "between about 0.02 inches and 0.05 inches," a width "between about 0.015 inches and 0.04 inches," a pitch "between about 0.09 inches and 0.24 inches," and "sidewalls that are substantially perpendicular to the polishing surface."  Slip op. at 3 (citation omitted).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from