Ex Parte Emami et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 8, 201111063653 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/063,653 02/22/2005 Ramin Emami AMAT/5251.C1/PPC/CMP/RKK 5285 44257 7590 09/08/2011 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX 3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2011 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RAMIN EMAMI, ROBERT LUM, and SOURABH MISHRA ____________ Appeal 2009-014487 Application 11/063,653 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ramin Emami et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-29, 31, 33-39, 41, 42, and 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagahara (US 6,168,508 B1, iss. Jan. 2, 2001) in view of Kim (US 5,899,745, iss. May 4, 1999). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2009-014487 Application 11/063,653 2 The Invention The claims on appeal relate to an article for polishing a substrate and the apparatus for processing a substrate with the article for polishing the substrate. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 21. An article for polishing a substrate, comprising: a polishing pad having a substrate polishing surface, the polishing pad comprising: a first polishing material having a first hardness and defining an outer portion of the substrate polishing surface; and a second polishing material having a second hardness and defining a center portion of the substrate polishing surface, the second polishing material having a hardness different than a hardness of the first polishing material, wherein the first hardness is less than the second hardness and the second hardness is about 50 or higher on the Shore D hardness scale. OPINION We have carefully reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s response. As a result of this review, we conclude that the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Our reasons follow. Although Nagahara teaches various properties in the substrate polishing surface, the disclosed hardness is not within the claimed range. Nagahara teaches the harder material for the polishing pad is between 30 Shore A to 90 Shore A. Appellants submit that such a range equates to a Appeal 2009-014487 Application 11/063,653 3 range of 6 Shore D and 39 Shore D. App. Br. 10. We find this range far short of Appellants’ claimed range. Kim’s hardness variations in the pad are taught as being provided for the under pad 20 which underlies the top polishing pad 21. The top polishing pad 21 has a single hardness of between 25 to 50 Shore D and contains the substrate polishing surface. See figure 3. The under pad 20 consists of edge portion 24 and central portion 22 and does not contain the substrate polishing surface. The hardness of edge portion 24 is greater than 40 Shore D. The hardness of central portion 22 is between 5 to 30 Shore D. As such, the under pad 20 is the opposite of what is claimed, i.e., the outer portion of the pad is less hard than the center portion. CONCLUSION For the reasons above, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21-29, 31, 33-39, 41, 42, and 46-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagahara in view of Kim is reversed. REVERSED Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation