Ex Parte Duong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 2, 2012

12055621 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHAU H. DUONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Appellant's claims are directed generally to methods of using
polishing pads for chemical mechanical planarization (CMP), and in
particular relates to methods of using water-based polishing pads exhibiting
improved defectivity. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A chemical mechanical planarization method
comprising:
providing a chemical mechanical, polishing machine;
providing a semiconductor substrate;
providing a polishing solution;
providing a chemical mechanical polishing pad
comprising,
a permeable substrate having a thickness of 2-100 mils;
and
a polishing layer comprising a polymeric matrix
having microspheres dispersed therein, wherein the polymeric
matrix is formed of a water-based polymer blend, wherein the
polishing layer is applied on the permeable substrate, wherein
the polymeric matrix comprises a blend of 3:1 to 1:3 (by
weight) of an aqueous urethane dispersion and an acrylic
dispersion, wherein the microspheres are gas filled, wherein the
polymeric matrix contains at least 0.3 volume percent
microspheres, wherein the microspheres have a weight average
diameter of 10-100 µm, wherein the polishing layer has grooves
formed therein;
mounting the chemical mechanical polishing pad in the
chemical mechanical polishing machine;
Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
3
mounting the semiconductor substrate in the chemical
mechanical polishing machine;
dispensing the polishing solution onto the chemical
mechanical polishing pad and into a gap between the
semiconductor wafer and the chemical mechanical polishing
pad; and,
creating dynamic contact between the chemical
mechanical polishing pad and the semiconductor wafer,
wherein a surface of the semiconductor substrate is polished
and made planar; and,
wherein the chemical mechanical polishing pad exhibits
improved defectivity.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tsuei US 5,783,303 Jul. 21, 1998
Lee
James
Chadda
Bonner
Overbeek
Pasqualoni
Reinhardt
US 2002/0025763 A1
US 2002/0098782 A1
US 2002/0098784 A1
US 2003/0036339 A1
US 2003/0055171 A1
US 2003/0064671 A1
US 2003/0068960 A1
Feb. 28, 2002
Jul. 25, 2002
Jul. 25, 2002
Feb. 20, 2003
Mar. 20, 2003
Apr. 3, 2003
Apr. 10, 2003

Ibrahim Bechara, et al., Witcobond® A-100, A Solvent-Free
Polyurethane/Polyacrylate Alloy, 1-13 (2003) (www.cromptoncorp.com)
(hereinafter “Bechara”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Overbeek and James. Ans. 3.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Overbeek, James and Tsuei. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Overbeek, James, and further in view
of Bechara. Ans. 5.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Overbeek, James, Lee, Chadda, and
Bonner. Ans. 6.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reinhardt in view of Overbeek, James, Lee, Chadda,
Bonner, Bechara, and Pasqualoni. Ans. 7.

ISSUE
Appellant challenges the propriety of the combination of the teachings
of Reinhardt and Overbeek as applied to claims 1-6.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that because Reinhardt generally discloses “that
various polymers or copolymers could be used for forming the [polymer]
matrix (Paragraph 34)” of a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) pad,
that one of skill in the art would then look to Overbeek’s alleged teaching
“that it is old and well known in the art to provide polymeric matrices
formed from a blend of about 3:1 of an aqueous urethane dispersion and an
acrylic dispersion (abstract or Paragraph 184).” Ans. 4. What Overbeek
teaches and what the Examiner cites to is as follows:
Aqueous polymer composition suitable for coating which
comprises the following components dispersed in water: (1) a
combination of an acrylic polymer(s) A and an acrylic
polymer(s) B where polymer(s) A has a Tg of not more than
30° C. and polymer(s) B has a Tg of at least 35° C., more
Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
5
preferably at least 45° C., which is at least 25° C. higher than
the Tg of polymer(s) A, and wherein one or both of polymers A
and B bear crosslinker functional groups capable of imparting
ambient-temperature crosslinkability to component (1) in a
coating formed from the composition via the formation of non-
radically-formed covalent bonds; and (2) a self-dispersible,
ionically stabilised polymer having olefinically unsaturated
bond functionality capable of imparting radiation-curability
(preferably uv-radiation curability) thereto in a coating formed
from the composition.
Abstract.

and

Aqueous polymer compositions were prepared by slowly
adding the uv-curable urethane dispersion R4 to the acrylic
polymer emulsions AP3, AP4, AP5, AP6, AP7, AP8 and AP9
(all solid to solid weight ratio’s [sic] of 3:1, acrylic:urethane)
as shown in the following Table 2. Examples 8 through 13
are according to the invention while Example C7 is
comparative (the acrylic polymer combination of AP3
having no external crosslinking agent for crosslinking the
carboxyl groups thereof).

Para. [0184].

Simply finding a reference that discloses, as Appellant states, one of the
“near infinite variety of combinations possible” of polymers disclosed
by Reinhardt in a field unrelated to CMP does “not teach, disclose or
suggest that chemical mechanical polishing of a semiconductor
substrate using a chemical mechanical polishing pad comprising a
polishing layer as claimed in the instant application would exhibit
improved defectivity.” Br. 11. As further stated by Appellant,
Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
6
[t]here is no disclosure in Overbeek et al. that would
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the chemical mechanical
polishing art that a protective coating formulation as
disclosed by Overbeek et al., for use as a protective
coating, would exhibit utility in the formulation of a
chemical mechanical polishing pad for use in the chemical
mechanical planarization of a semiconductor substrate-let
alone, exhibit improved defectivity.
Br. 11-12. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner, in
this instance, has provided an obviousness rejection “sustained by mere
conclusory statements” and has not “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Because all of
the rejections of claims 1-6 rely on the improper combination of the
teachings of Reinhardt and Overbeek, those rejections are also
improper.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not provided a proper basis for the combination of
the teachings of Reinhardt and Overbeek in regard to claims 1-6.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1-6.

REVERSED

Appeal 2010-007577
Application 12/055,621
7
hh