Ex Parte Reiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2016

13351339 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/351,339 01/17/2012
29050 7590 02/12/2016
Thomas Omholt
Patent Prosecution Agent
CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AURORA, IL 60504
Brian REISS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
100475 6771
EXAMINER
DEO, DUY VU NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2016 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):
CMC_PROSECUTION@CABOTCMP.COM
thomas_omholt@cabotcmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN REISS, JOHN CLARK, LAMON JONES,
AND MICHAEL WHITE
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Boggs et al. ("Boggs") (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2008/0254628 Al, published October 16, 2008), Kamimura
(U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0181534 Al, published
August 9, 2007), and Anjur et al. ("Anjur") (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2009/0156006 Al, published June 18, 2009). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Independent claims 1 and 23 are illustrative:
1. A chemical-mechanical polishing composition comprising:
(a) silica,
(b) one or more tetraalkylammonium salts,
( c) one or more bicarbonate salts,
( d) one or more alkali metal hydroxides,
( e) one or more aminophosphonic acids,
( f) one or more rate accelerator compounds selected from the group
consisting of heterocyclic amines, mono amino acids, and hydroxy acids,
(g) one or more polysaccharides selected from the group consisting of
hydroxyalkylcelluloses, dextrans, carboxylated dextrans, and sulfonated
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cabot
Microelectronics Corporation. Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2014 ("App.
Br."), 1.
2 Final Office Action mailed October 3, 2013 ("Final").
2
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
dextrans, wherein at least one polysaccharide has an average molecular
weight less than 300,000 g/mol, and
(f) water.
23. A method of chemically-mechanically polishing a substrate
compnsmg:
(i) contacting a substrate with a polishing pad and the chemical-
mechanical polishing composition of claim 1,
(ii) moving the polishing pad relative to the substrate with chemical-
mechanical polishing composition therebetween, and
(iii) abrading at least a portion of the substrate to polish the substrate.
App. Br. 9, 11.
Appellants present separate arguments in support of patentability of
dependent claims 6, 7, and 13-16. Id. at 8. Appellants rely on the same
arguments in support of patentability of claim 1 in traversing the rejection of
independent claim 23. Id. at 2-7. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 8-12, and 17-
23 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 17-23
Appellants request reversal of the Examiner's rejection on the basis
that the Examiner erred in finding "one of ordinary skill in the art would
[have] combine[ d] the various elements disclosed in the cited references in
the precise manner necessary to arrive at the subject matter of the pending
claims .... " App. Br. 3--4, and 6-7 (contending the Examiner relies on
improper hindsight reasoning). Appellants concede that Boggs, Kamimura,
and Anjur disclose all the elements of claim 1, but argue that "the teachings
of Boggs, Kamimura, and Anjur are such that one of ordinary skill in the art
3
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
would not have combined the disclosures." Id. at 3---6; see also Reply Brief
filed July 31, 2014 ("Reply Br."), 4.
The Examiner finds Kamimura teaches a slurry that includes sodium
bicarbonate. Examiner's Answer mailed June 4, 2014 ("Ans."), 2. The
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
"to add bicarbonate salts [to Bogg' s composition] because [Kamimura]
teaches [bicarbonate salts] are used as alkali agent[ s] or buffering agent[ s ]"
for adjusting pH. Id. (internal citation omitted). The Examiner's findings
are supported by the disclosures in Boggs and Kamimura which describe
chemical mechanical polishing compositions, and disclose using many of the
same alkali agents for adjusting pH. See Boggs i-fi-153, 60 ("Bases can be
optionally employed for pH adjustment ... include potassium hydroxide,
ammonium hydroxide, and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) ...
. "), and Kamimura i-fi-12, 68-69 ("Specific examples of the alkali agent (or
the buffering agent) include ammonium hydroxide ... potassium hydroxide .
. . sodium bicarbonate ... and tetramethylammonium hydroxide.").
The Examiner finds Anjur teaches a slurry that includes amino
tri(methylenephosphonic) acid. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to "add[] Anjur' s amino
tri(methylenephosphonic) acid to [Bogg' s composition] because Anjur
teaches that it has been successfully used as [an] acidic metal complexing
agent to facilitate a polishing process," and the resultant combination "would
have yielded predictable results." Id. (internal citations omitted). The
Examiner's findings are supported by Anjur's disclosure which teaches that
its "acidic metal complexing agent" includes acidic chelating agents as in
Boggs. See Boggs i-fi-153, 57 ("chelating agents and/or etchants useful in the
4
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
present invention include but are not limited to inorganic acids and organic
acids ... (e.g., citric acid , ... oxalic acid ... succinic acid ... ), and
combinations thereof."), and Anjur i-fi-f 18, 25, and 27 ("Preferred acidic
metal complexing agents include ... (e.g., oxalic acid or succinic acid) ...
(e.g., citric acid), phosphonic acids ... , and combinations of two or more of
the foregoing. Preferred phosphonic acid chelating agents include ...
amino-tri(methylene-phosphonic acid)").
For the reasons above, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient
evidentiary support for combining the cited references. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring "some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.").
Appellants have not presented any arguments or evidence that persuade us of
error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to appealed claims 1-
5, 8-13, and 17-23. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
("The prima facie case is a procedural tool, and requires the examiner
initially produce evidence sufficient to support a ruling of obviousness;
thereafter the burden shirts to the applicant to come forward with evidence
or argument in rebuttal.").
Claims 6, 7, and 13-16
Appellants request reversal of the Examiner's rejection of each of
claims 6, 7, and 13-16 on the basis that the Examiner has failed to identify
any description in the cited references of a polishing composition as recited
in these claims. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that Boggs describes "hydroxyethylcellulose
[having] a MW in the range of 1,000 to 1,000,000 (paragraphs 0067---0068)."
5
Appeal2014-009630
Application 13/351,339
Ans. 2. Accordingly, Appellants' argument regarding claim 13 is not
persuasive.
With regard to claims 6, 7, and 14--16, the Examiner contends the
claimed limitations "are optional as they can be picked and [chosen]
according to claim 1," and [t]herefore, they are not necessarily part[] of the
composition." Id. at 4.
The Examiner's position appears to be based on a misinterpretation of
the claim language. Claims 6 and 7 depend indirectly from claim 2, which
requires that one of the accelerator compounds comprise a heterocyclic
amine. Similarly, each of claims 13-16 depend directly (claims 14--16) or
indirectly (claim 13) from claim 1, and require that the composition
comprise a specific one of the polysaccharide compounds listed in the
Markush group. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to
identify a teaching of all the elements recited in claims 6, 7, and 14--16 in the
cited references. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, and 17-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boggs in view of Kamimura, and
Anjur.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 6, 7, and 14--16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Boggs in view of Kamimura and
Anjur.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6