Ex Parte Kulp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12221581 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/221,581 08/05/2008 Mary Jo Kulp 08011 2243
61611 7590 12/23/2016
ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
CMP HOLDINGS, INC.
c/o The Dow Chemical Company
P.O. Box 1967
Midland, MI 48641
EXAMINER
ADKINS, CHINESSAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1788
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
FFUIMPC@dow.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARY JO KULP and
T. TOOD CRKVENAC
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—6, 8, and 9 of Application
12/221,581. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a polishing pad suitable for
polishing patterned semiconductor substrates. App. Br. 8.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rohm and Haas Electronic
Materials CMP Holdings, Inc. (App. Br. 4).
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A polishing pad suitable for polishing patterned
semiconductor substrates containing at least one of copper,
dielectric, barrier and tungsten, the polishing pad comprising a
polymeric matrix and hollow polymeric particles within the
polymeric matrix, the polymeric matrix being a polyurethane
reaction product of a curative agent and an isocyanate-
terminated polytetramethylene ether glycol at an NH2 to NCO
stoichiometric ratio of 80 to 97 percent, the isocyanate-
terminated polytetramethylene ether glycol having an
unreacted NCO range of 8.75 to 9.05 weight percent, the
curative agent containing curative amines that cure the
isocyanate-terminated polytetramethylene ether glycol to form
the polymeric matrix; and the hollow polymeric particles
having an average diameter of 2 to 50 pm and a wt%b and
densityb of constituents forming the polishing pad as follows:
* density,, = ^
density a
where densitya equals an average density of 60 g/1,
where densityb is an average density of 5 g/1 to 500g/l,
where wt%a is 3.25 to 3.6 wt%,
the polishing pad having a porosity of 30 to 60 percent by
volume and a closed cell structure within the polymeric matrix
forming a continuous network surrounding the closed cell
structure wherein the continuous network has a roughened
surface; and the roughened surface is capable of trapping fumed
silica particles during polishing and the volume percent
porosity and average diameter of the hollow polymeric particles
reduce polishing defectivity.
2
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3—6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kulp.2
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue all claims as a group, based on limitations recited in
claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 11—14. We choose claim 1 as representative; all
other claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Having considered the evidence presented in the Appeal and each of
Appellants’ arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify
reversible error in the rejection. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set
forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily
for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Kulp teaches a polyurethane polishing pad
comprising a polymeric matrix and hollow polymeric microspheres of the
same size and type as disclosed in the Specification. Ans. 2, 5—6, citing
Kulp 3:24—25, 4:16—29, 46—52, 8:25—33. The Examiner further finds that
Kulp teaches its polymeric matrix is a reaction product of a curative agent
and an isocyanate-terminated polytetramethylene ether glycol at
stoichiometric ratios which read on Appellants’ claimed ranges, and that
Kulp’s method of preparing the polishing pad is similar to the method
described in Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 2—4, citing Kulp 5:20-36, 60-
67, 6:27—29, 7:3—6, 9:23—25; Specification || 22—23. As to the hollow
polymeric microspheres, the Examiner finds that Kulp teaches a weight
2 Kulp et al., US 2010/0035529 Al, published Feb. 11, 2010 (hereinafter
“Kulp”).
3
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
percentage of 3.21% (Table 1), and that increasing the quantity of polymeric
microspheres improves polishing defectivity performance. Ans. 5—6, citing
Kulp Table 1, 9:5—8. The Examiner thus determines that a person of
ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the weight percentages
and densities of Kulp’s microspheres in order to improve defectivity
performance and provide superior planarization ability of the polishing pad.
Ans. 6, citing Kulp 1:8—19, 2:12—17. The Examiner further determines that
because Kulp’s polishing pad is structurally the same as the pad recited in
claim 1, it would be understood to be capable of the same use, i.e. trapping
fumed silica particles. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the rejection is based on improper hindsight
because Kulp does not explicitly teach the “the roughened surface [of the
continuous network between closed cells] is capable of trapping fumed silica
particles during polishing.” Reply Br. 2—3; App. Br. 11. We do not find this
argument persuasive, because the Examiner’s findings that Kulp’s polishing
pad has a roughened surface as a result of being conditioned with a hard
surface, and that grooves and perforations in the roughened surface have the
capability of trapping fumed silica particles, provide sufficient articulated
reasoning to support the conclusion of obviousness and demonstrate the
combination is not based on impermissible hindsight. KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants further argue that “it was unexpected that a range of 3.25
to 3.6 weight percent hollow polymeric microspheres provided improved
polishing with fumed silica for the particular polyurethane with the
particular claimed NCO range.” App. Br. 13. Appellants submit three
Declarations of Dr. Mary Jo Kulp as evidence of unexpected results to rebut
the rejection. In particular, Appellants rely on data presented in Table 2 of
4
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
the Declarations dated August 31, 2011 and June 8, 2012 as showing “an
excellent removal rate” for Formulations 1 and 2 having 3.36 wt% hollow
polymeric microspheres, respectively (within the recited wt% of claim 1).
App. Br. 12—13. Appellants point to two comparative examples presented in
Table 2 that have wt% of hollow polymeric microspheres of 3.01 and 3.66,
and lower removal rates both at thirty seconds and overall. E.g., Declaration
dated June 8, 2012, Table 2 and 19. The Examiner responds by noting that
Formulation B of Table 2, which includes 3.21 wt% hollow polymeric
microspheres (the same amount taught by Kulp) shows a removal rate better
than Formulation 1 and comparable to Formulation 2, and thus shows that
the results for Formulations 1 and 2 are not unexpected. Ans. 8. In reply,
Appellants do not address this data. Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner additionally finds that Formulations 1 and 2 address
only one wt% value of hollow polymeric microspheres as recited in claim 1,
and thus do not show criticality of the claimed range of wt% or establish
unexpected results commensurate with the scope of the claim. Ans. 7.
Appellants argue that discovering the range of hollow polymeric
microspheres was not mere optimization and that a single data point should
be considered sufficient to show unexpected results because the claimed
range is only 0.35 wt%. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ argument
does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s finding as to unexpected
results. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508—09 (CCPA 1972); see also In
re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329—31 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that evidence
of unexpected results for several data points within claimed range of “about
1 to 3 percent” was not commensurate in scope). We further note that the
data Appellants present to support their argument of unexpected results
shows, e.g., only a single stoichiometric ratio of NH2 to NCO within the
5
Appeal 2015-005584
Application 12/221,581
claimed range of 80-97%, and only a single average diameter of the hollow
polymeric microspheres within the claimed range of 2 to 50 pm.
Declaration dated June 8, 2012, Tables 1—2. For those additional reasons,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument of unexpected results.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8, and 9 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the reasons set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6