11727119 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Lu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 30, 2012

11727119 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

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. 11/727,119 03/23/2007 Hsin-Hsien Lu 0941-1910PUS1 9532 47826 7590 08/30/2012 BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP P.O. BOX 747 FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747 EXAMINER GRANT, ALVIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3723 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2012 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 HSIN-HSIEN LU, LIANG-GUANG CHEN, TIEN-I BAO and SHAU-LIN SHUE ____________ Appeal 2010-008976 Application 11/727,119 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before LINDA E. HORNER, LYNNE H. BROWNE and MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hsin-Hsien Lu et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-008976 Application 11/727,119 2 The Invention 1. (Original) A polisher for chemical mechanical planarization, comprising: a polishing pad structure containing a first reactant therein; and a second reactant in a polishing environment over the polishing pad structure; wherein the first reactant and the second reactant react endothermically upon contact when polishing a wafer surface between the polishing pad structure and the polishing environment. The Rejections Appellants seek review of the following rejections: Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Naik (US 7,153,191 B2, iss. Dec. 26, 2006) and Obeng (US 6,818,301 B2, iss. Nov. 16, 2004 ). CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner finds: Naik discloses a polishing pad structure containing a first reactant therein, and a slurry having activating particles. Naik does not specifically disclose an endothermic reaction between the reactant and the slurry during CMP. Obeng et al. teaches that the combination of reactants can create an endothermic effect during CMP so as to improve the thermal management of the process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used reactants that would cause an endothermic reaction in Naik's apparatus as taught by Obeng et al. so as to improve the thermal management of the process. Ans. 3. Appeal 2010-008976 Application 11/727,119 3 Appellants argue: Obeng discloses a thermoconductive polymer comprising a substrate and filler particle containing a Group II salt to improve thermal management (see Abstract). In particular, Obeng in col. 6, lines 12-24 discloses that Group II salt includes an anion comprising hydroxide, for example, Magnesium Oxide (Mg(OH)2), and that oxide and water are produced by endothermic decomposition of hydroxide. Therefore, the endothermic decomposition of Magnesium Oxide (Mg(OH)2) in Obeng is as follows: Mg(OH)2 →MgO + H2O. Obeng in col. 8, line 35 to col. 9, line 9 further discloses that the filler particles 224 in polishing pad 200 may include an anion comprised of hydroxide capable of decomposing endothermically during polishing. Therefore, it is clear that it is the decomposition of the hydroxide, not the combination of two reactants as the Examiner alleged, that results in the endothermic decomposition. In other words, Obeng simply discloses a single reactant in the polishing pad for decomposing endothermically. App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds: The Group II salts react by decomposing when combined with the slurry in Obeng et al. Obeng et al. teaches different methods of thermal management during CMP, because of the heat generation, and one embodiment is providing a reactant that reacts endothermically during the CMP process. Ans. 4. The question before us is whether Obeng teaches first and second reactants as required by independent claims 1, 11 and 21, and by claims 2- Appeal 2010-008976 Application 11/727,119 4 10, 12-20, 22 and 23 based on their dependency from one of claims 1, 11 or 21. ANALYSIS Obeng states, “[T]he present invention, in one embodiment, provides a heat conductive polishing pad for chemical-mechanical polishing. The pad comprises a polishing body including a thermoconductive polymer having a substrate with filler particles contained therein. The filler particles contain a Group II salt.” Obeng, col. 3, ll. 10-15. Obeng further describes endothermic decomposition of the Group II salt stating, “[T]he Group II salt includes an anion comprising hydroxide, for example Magnesium Hydroxide. In embodiments where the anion is hydroxide, the endothermic decomposition of the hydroxide to oxide plus water, are thought to play a beneficial role in the thermal management and in improving wetability during the CMP process.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-24. While Obeng does not explicitly describe how the endothermic decomposition is triggered, Obeng states: Additionally, in certain preferred embodiments, the thermoconductive polymer is stable in the pH range of about 2 to about 12. The term stable as used herein means that the thermoconductive polymer, when incorporated into a polishing device, does not show visual signs of decomposing in the CMP slurry, nor fray or fragment during use. Obeng, col. 4, ll. 27-33 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he Group II salts react by decomposing when combined with the slurry in Obeng et al.” which formed the basis of the obviousness rejection. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-008976 Application 11/727,119 5 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED Klh