11423760 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 8, 2010)

Ex Parte Bottema

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 8, 2010

11423760 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN BOTTEMA ____________________ Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Brian Bottema (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claims 1, 15-18, 20, 21, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,029,365 B2, iss. Apr. 18, 2006); and claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 14-21, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 5,904,615, iss. May 18, 1999) and Hu (US 6,227,947 B1, iss. May 8, 2001). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). THE INVENTION The claims pertain to a method of polishing a layer using a polishing pad. Spec. 1:5-6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing a polishing pad with a major surface; forming a groove in the major surface of the polishing pad wherein the groove has a predetermined pattern, wherein the step of forming the groove includes: generating high frequency vibrations; transferring the high frequency vibrations through a liquid having particles suspended therein that contacts the polishing pad to remove material of the polishing pad in forming the groove. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 3 OPINION Rejection based on Chang The issue presented is whether Chang describes a method using high frequency vibrations to form one or more grooves in a polishing pad according to a predetermined pattern, as called for in each of independent claims 1, 21, and 24. The Examiner found that Chang discloses “forming grooves in the upper surface of the pad by applying an ultrasonic knife or punch to the pad surface.” Ans. 3. The Examiner has not cited any specific portion of Chang teaching this process for forming grooves. Like Appellant (see App. Br. 12), we find no such disclosure in Chang. Chang discloses a polishing pad having both grooves 452 and one or more permeable passages 418. Fig. 4A. The grooves 452 are formed partially through the processing layer 404 of the pad, while the permeable passages 418 extend completely through the processing layer. Col. 8, ll. 22- 24. Chang describes forming the plurality of holes of a permeable passage using an ultrasonic knife/punch to perforate the processing layer. Col. 7, ll. 1-5; col. 8, ll. 47-49; col. 6, ll. 28-29. We find no disclosure in Chang of forming the grooves using this technique, and the Examiner has not directed us to any such disclosure. Chang’s teaching that holes 450 of the permeable passages may be formed within the grooves 452 “such that any protrusions, burrs, flash, or unevenness which may be caused by the forming of the holes 450 in the processing layer 404 is disposed below a working surface 428 of the pad assembly 406” (col. 8, ll. 50-54) suggests that Chang may contemplate use of different techniques for forming the grooves than those described for forming the holes of the permeable passages. Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 4 For the above reasons, we cannot find by a preponderance of the evidence that Chang describes a method using high frequency vibrations to form one or more grooves in a polishing pad according to a predetermined pattern, as called for in each of independent claims 1, 21, and 24. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 15-18, 20, 21, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable over Chang. Rejection based on Jeong and Hu The issue presented is whether Jeong and Hu render obvious a method using high frequency vibrations to form one or more grooves in a polishing pad according to “a predetermined pattern,” as called for in each of independent claims 1, 21, and 24. Jeong describes a process of cleaning the glaze that forms in the voids of a polishing pad by contacting the pad with a conditioning tool 36 and oscillating the tool vertically while rotating it horizontally, separating the grain components of the slurry glazed in voids in the pad 11 from the voids. Col. 5, l. 7 to col. 6, l. 22. Jeong emphasizes, with reference to figures 5A to 5C, that the surface condition following the conditioning operation is “similar to the condition of a new pad” (col. 5, ll. 59-61), and that the glaze is removed “without a wearing of the pad” (col. 5, ll. 36-37). According to Jeong, “the amount of the pad worn during the pad conditioning is very small,” or “fine,” so as to render the life of the pad “semi-permanent.” Col. 6, ll. 18-22. Hu teaches that “[t]he goal of the conditioning process is to remove polishing debris from the pad surface, reopen the pores, and thus forms micro scratches in the surface of the pad for improved life time of the pad surface.” Col. 3, ll. 25-28. Hu’s disclosed conditioning process does not involve oscillation, or high frequency vibrations. Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 5 The Examiner concluded from the combined teachings of Jeong and Hu that it would have been obvious to form micro scratches in the pad surface in the method of Jeong during the conditioning step, to restore pad performance. Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner found that the micro scratches discussed by Hu constitute “grooves,” as called for in Appellant’s claims. Ans. 3-4. Even assuming that it would have been obvious, in view of the combined teachings of Jeong and Hu, to form micro scratches in the pad using the conditioning process of Jeong, such micro scratches would appear to be random, not in accordance with “a predetermined pattern,” as called for in each of Appellant’s independent claims 1, 21, and 24. The Examiner has not addressed the “predetermined pattern” limitation of the claims, and thus has not established a prima facie case that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 21, and 24, or any of their dependent claims, would have been obvious. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 14-21, 24, and 25 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Hu. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2009-008635 Application 11/423,760 6 hh FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. LAW DEPARTMENT 7700 WEST PARMER LANE MD:TX32/PL02 AUSTIN, TX 78729