Ex Parte Emami et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2011

11063653 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2011)

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