Ex Parte Andreas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2008

10933927 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL T. ANDREAS
____________

Appeal 2008-1601
Application 10/933,927
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: March 10, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 71-73, 75-80,
82-88, and 91. Claims 89 and 90 have been allowed.
Claim 71 is illustrative:
71. A CMP method comprising:

applying a CMP slurry containing substantially dispersed, solid
abrasive material to a substrate;
Appeal 2008-1601
Application 10/933,927

applying to the substrate a surfactant containing material that exhibits
the characteristic of decreasing a settling time for the abrasive material in an
aqueous dilution of the slurry by complexing between at least a portion of
the abrasive material and the surfactant to form floccule and flocculating at
least a majority portion of the abrasive material with the surfactant; and

removing at least some of the abrasive material.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Grieger 5,855,811 Jan. 5, 1999
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a CMP method
comprising applying a slurry containing solid abrasive material to a
substrate, and then adding a surfactant to the substrate that flocculates a
majority portion of the abrasive material with the surfactant. The surfactant
may be a quaternary ammonium substituted salt, such as a quaternary
ammonium halide.
Appealed claims 71-73, 75-80, 82-84, 86-88, and 91 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and § 102(e) as being anticipated by Grieger.
Claim 85 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Grieger.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. As a result, we find ourselves in substantial
agreement with the arguments set forth by Appellant that Grieger does not
describe the claimed method within the meaning of § 102. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
There is no dispute that Grieger discloses a CMP method of applying
to a substrate a slurry containing solid abrasive material and then applying a
2
Appeal 2008-1601
Application 10/933,927

quaternary ammonium substituted salt as a surfactant to the substrate.
Although Grieger does not teach that the application of the surfactant
flocculates the dispersion, it is the Examiner's position that the Grieger
method inherently results in flocculation since the same chemicals are used,
namely, an abrasive material of ceria and a quaternary ammonium
substituted halide.
To the extent that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
inherency, we find that Appellant has effectively rebutted the Examiner's
position. Appellant makes the argument that the generic formula disclosed
by Grieger for the quaternary ammonium substituted salt encompasses
millions of compounds and it is reasonable to conclude that not all of these
compounds act as a flocculating agent in the claimed method, especially
since Grieger does not teach that flocculation occurs but, rather, dispersion.
In addition, one of the named inventors of the Grieger patent, Michael T.
Andreas, has placed of record a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 in
support of Appellant's position that flocculation does not occur in the
Grieger patented method. The declarant states that "[d]ispersion and
suspension of planarization residue and flocculation of abrasive material
involve opposing processes, even though either may be used for cleaning"
(para. 6). The declarant also states that "I was not aware of any compound
among the specific tetraalkylammonium hydroxide and tetraalkylammonium
fluoride compounds listed in Grieger capable of forming floccule with
planarization residue" (para. 4).
Also, our review of Grieger and Appellant's Specification finds no
specific quaternary ammonium substituted salts in common. Grieger teaches
that tetramethylammonium fluoride (TMAF) and tetraethylammonium
3
Appeal 2008-1601
Application 10/933,927

fluoride (TEAF) are preferred salts (col. 4, ll. 27 et seq.). On the other hand,
Appellant's Specification does not disclose the use of either of these
compounds as a flocculating agent. Rather, Appellant's Specification
discloses the use of cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and polyethoxylated
quaternary ammonium halide (page 8), as well as ethoxylated stearyl methyl
quaternary ammonium chloride and ethoxylated cocoalkyl methyl
quaternary ammonium chloride (page 13). Consequently, other than Grieger
and Appellant broadly teaching the use of a quaternary ammonium
substituted salt, there is no basis for concluding that Grieger and Appellant
utilize the same specific compounds. Since inherency must be founded on
inevitability and not possibility, we must agree with Appellant that methods
fairly taught by Grieger do not perform the claimed flocculating step. It is
not insignificant that the appealed claims do not call for simply applying a
quaternary ammonium substituted salt but specifically recite the step of
flocculating the abrasive material.
As for the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 85, the Examiner has
not set forth a rationale why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to select a flocculating agent for the method of Grieger.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED

cam

4
Appeal 2008-1601
Application 10/933,927

WELLS ST. JOHN, P.S.
601 W. FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 1300
SPOKANE, WA 99201

5