Ex Parte Oba et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

14236858 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
14/236,858 02/03/2014 Shigeru Oba 160381 7592
25944 7590
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
KLUNK, MARGARET D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
j armstrong @ oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIGERU OBA and TAKAO KAWAMATA
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/23 6,85 s1
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 Appellants identify Shin-Etsu Handotai Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed February 3, 2014
(“Spec.”); the Non-Final Action delivered electronically on June 8, 2015
(“Non-Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed August 13, 2015 (“Br.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer delivered electronically on January 13, 2016 (“Ans.”).
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
7, 11, 14, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to a method for polishing a silicon wafer.
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A method for polishing a silicon wafer, the method
comprising:
polishing the silicon wafer by bringing the silicon wafer
into sliding contact with a polishing pad attached to a turn table
while supplying a polishing agent stored in a tank to the
polishing pad;
circulating the polishing agent to recover the supplied
polishing agent in the tank; and
adding a new polishing agent to the tank in the same
amount as that of a part of the supplied polishing agent that is
not recovered in the tank, wherein
the silicon wafer is polished while adjusting a
concentration of silicate ions contained in the polishing agent
circulating to be recovered in the tank to be within a range of
1.0 to 4.6 g/L, and
the concentration of silicate ions that is reduced
because of the part of the polishing agent not being recovered in
the tank is adjusted to be within the range of 1.0 to 4.6 g/L by
adding alkali to the polishing agent in the tank during polishing
of the silicon wafer to generate the silicate ions by a reaction
between the alkali and the silicon wafer.
Claims Appendix A-l.
2
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Kurataetal. US 2005/0181609 A1 Aug. 18,2005
(“Kurata”)
Iida et al. JP 11-010540 Jan. 19, 1999
(“Iida”)3
Miyazaki JP 2004—186350 July 2,2004
REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1)
claims 7 and 11 over Miyazaki in view of Iida; and (2) claims 14 and 17
over Miyazaki in view of Iida and further in view of Kurata. Non-Final Act.
2, 4; Ans. 2, 4.
OPINION
Appellants do not argue claim 11 separately from claim 7. See
generally Appeal Br. In addition, Appellants rely on the same arguments
presented for claim 7 in addressing the rejection of claims 14 and 17. Id. at
8. Accordingly, we select independent claim 7 as representative of the
subject matter before us on appeal in our discussion of the rejections.
Claims 11, 14, and 17 will stand or fall with claim 7.
Appellants dispute that either Miyazaki or Iida teach or disclose the
following four elements of claim 7:
(1) circulating the polishing agent to recover the supplied
polishing agent in the tank; (2) adding a new polishing agent to
the tank in the same amount as that of a part of the supplied
3 We rely on the English machine translations of Iida and Miyazaki in the
record, to which Appellants have not objected.
3
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
polishing agent that is not recovered in the tank, (3) the silicon
wafer being polished while adjusting a concentration of silicate
ions contained in the polishing agent circulating to be recovered
in the tank to be within a range of 1.0 to 4.6 g/L, and (4) the
concentration of silicate ions that is reduced because of the part
of the polishing agent not being recovered in the tank being
adjusted to be within the range of 1.0 to 4.6 g/L by adding
alkali to the polishing agent in the tank during polishing of the
silicon wafer to generate the silicate ions by a reaction between
the alkali and the silicon wafer.
See Br. 4-5.
With respect to (1) and (2), the Examiner finds that Iida teaches these
elements. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner applies Iida for the teaching that
the components of the slurry can be recycled and restored to an early
concentration value. Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that, regarding (3), Miyazaki teaches that the
silicon wafer is polished while adjusting a concentration of silicate ions
contained in the polishing agent in the tank to be within a predetermined
range, pointing to Miyazaki’s teaching of maintaining silicate ion
concentration at a predetermined amount. Non-Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. The
Examiner also finds that Miyazaki teaches the concentration of silicate ions
is adjusted to be within a range of 1.0 to 5.0 g/L, which covers the claimed
range. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
Regarding (4), the Examiner finds that Iida teaches adjusting the
concentration of silicate ions to be within a predetermined range by adding
alkali to the polishing agent in the tank during polishing of the silicon wafer
to generate the silicate ions by a reaction between the alkali and the silicon
wafer. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that generation of
4
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
silicate ions is an inherent result of the chemical reaction of an alkali and
silicon. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have found it obvious to modify Miyazaki to
include the circulation of polishing liquid as taught by Iida because Iida
teaches that this allows for the slurry to be recycled without reducing the
quality of polishing to result in lower cost. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The
Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add additional
silicate to maintain the concentration because Miyazaki teaches this is the
concentration that should be maintained, and Iida teaches values can be
maintained by adding back what was lost. Id.
Appellants merely contend that neither Miyazaki nor Iida “describes
or suggests that a silicon wafer is polished while adjusting a concentration of
silicate ions contained in the polishing agent circulating to be recovered in
the tank to be within a range of 1.0 to 4.6 g/L as required in claim 7.” Br. 5.
However, Appellants’ conclusory statement is unpersuasive, given the
Examiner’s findings that Iida teaches recycling of the polishing slurry, and
Miyazaki teaches the silicon wafer is polished while adjusting a
concentration of silicate ions contained in the polishing agent in the tank to
be within a predetermined range of 1.0 to 5.0 g/L. The Examiner’s
explanation of the reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had to combine the prior art teachings is sufficient in light of “the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
Appellants argue that “Miyazaki does not describe or suggest
‘maintaining’ a silicate ion concentration, but merely indicates what the
silicate ion concentration should be at initially.” Br. 5. However, Miyazaki
states what “the content of the silicate ion in the abrasive compound” is
preferably, and does not limit when the content should be in the stated range.
Miyazaki 19. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the
content of the silica ion in Miyazaki should be maintained. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
Appellants also argue that Iida does not describe or suggest restoring
silicate ion concentration at all, but describes only adjusting pH and silica
abrasive grain concentration. Br. 5. As the Examiner points out, Miyazaki,
not Iida, is used as the source of silicate ion concentration. It is the
combination of references over which the Examiner finds claim 7 obvious.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (each reference cited by the
Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole). It is well settled that a reference
stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one
of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom. See In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264—65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants contend that “the concentration of silicate ions is not
conventionally taken into consideration by practitioners in the art,” and
therefore one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
not have combined Miyazaki and Iida. Br. 6. Appellants’ argument is
unpersuasive in light of the teachings of the references, as discussed above.
6
Appeal 2016-004369
Application 14/236,858
We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but we ultimately do not
find them convincing. Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
determination that claim 7 is obvious over Miyazaki in view of Iida. For the
same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 14, and 17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 11, 14,
and 17 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7