Ex Parte Siddiqui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11643519 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/643,519 12/21/2006 Junaid Ahmed Siddiqui 07054 USA 3716
23543 7590 11/01/2012
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
PATENT DEPARTMENT
7201 HAMILTON BOULEVARD
ALLENTOWN, PA 18195-1501
EXAMINER
DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUNAID AHMED SIDDIQUI,
RACHEL DIANNE MCCONNELL and SAIFI USMANI
____________

Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
decision rejecting claims 1 through 8, 13 and 21 through 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method of chemical
mechanical planarization. App. Br. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of chemical mechanical planarization
comprising: movably contacting a substrate having a surface
which comprises copper, a low-k dielectric material, and a
barrier material with a polishing pad and a polishing
composition disposed between the polishing pad and the
surface, said polishing composition comprising between about
1 and about 5% by weight of hydrogen peroxide and between
10 ppm and 4000 ppm of a non-ionic fluorosurfactant
composition comprising a compound having the structure:
RfCH2CH2O(CH2CH2O)xH,
wherein Rf = F(CF2CF2)y;
x = 0 to about 25; and
y = 1 to about 9,
wherein the non-ionic fluorosurfactant reduces the removal rate
of the low-k dielectric material compared to the removal rate of
the copper and the barrier material during polishing with an
otherwise identical slurry but not having a non-ionic
fluorosurfactant.
The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:

Singh US 2003/0162399 A1 August 28, 2003
Moeggenborg US 2003/0228762 A1 December 11, 2003
Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

3
Carter US 2005/0090109 A1 April 28, 2005
Siddiqui US 6,979,252 B1 December 27, 2005

Michael Lane et al, Adhesion and Reliability of Copper Interconnects
with Ta and TaN Barrier Layers, 15 J. Materials Res. 203 (2000).
DUPONT, ZONYL FSN-100 FLUOROSURFACTANT (2005).
ERIK KRISSA, FLUORINATED SURFACTANTS AND REPELLENTS 164
(CRC Press 2001).
Appellants request review of the following rejections (App. Br. 4-5)
from the Examiner’s final office action:
1. Claims 1-3, 8 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont and Krissa.
2. Claims 4 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Siddiqui.
3. Claims 5, 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Carter.
4. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Singh.
5. Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa, Siddiqui and Carter.
6. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Singh.
Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

4
OPINION1, 2
After thorough review of the respective positions provided by
Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM the prior art rejections for the
reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following for emphasis.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of chemical
mechanical planarization using a polishing composition comprising between
about 1 and about 5% by weight of hydrogen peroxide and between 10 ppm
and 4000 ppm of a nonionic fluorosurfactant composition comprising a
compound having the structure described by the subject matter of
independent claim 1. Claim 1; App. Br. 7. As argued by Appellants, the
claimed combination of hydrogen peroxide and nonionic fluorosurfactant is
a unique synergistic combination that allows an electronics manufacturer to
specifically adjust removal rates of low-dielectric layers relative to the
copper and other materials during the polishing process. App. Br. 6-7;
Spec. 4.
The Examiner found that Moeggenborg discloses a method of
chemical mechanical planarization using a polishing composition
comprising 3% hydrogen peroxide and 50-10,000 ppm of an amphiphilic
fluorosurfactant to suppress the removal rate of the low-k dielectric layer
without substantially affecting removal rates of the other layers present on
the surface of the substrate. Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that

1 We focus our discussion on independent claim 1. We also note that
Appellants have not argued the dependent claims separately. Accordingly,
claims not argued separately will stand or fall together with independent
claim 1.
2 A discussion of the references to Lane, Siddiqui, Carter and Singh, is
unnecessary for disposition of this appeal.
Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

5
Moeggenborg does not disclose a fluorosurfactant having the structure
described in the subject matter of independent claim 1. Id. at 5. The
Examiner relied on Dupont and Krissa to establish that the claimed
fluorosurfactant was known and concluded that its use in the process of
Moeggenborg would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to improve
etching efficiency. Id. at 5-6.
Appellants alleged that the Examiner relied on hindsight in combining
the references. App. Br. 7-8. We are unpersuaded by this argument because
Appellants have failed to provide any discussion or explanation to support
the allegation.
Appellants argue that the rebuttal evidence of record (in the
Specification and the two Declarations by James Schleuter of January 12,
2010 and June 4, 2010 3) establishes that the claimed invention exhibits
surprising and unexpected results. Id. at 10-13, 15-18. Appellants argue
that the rebuttal evidence is reasonably commensurate in scope with the
claims. Id. at 17-18, 21.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that the showing is insufficient to overcome a prima
facie case of obviousness. Ans. 23-25. According to the Examiner the
rebuttal evidence provides data for fluorosurfactant concentrations of up to
2,000 ppm with various concentration levels of hydrogen peroxide but does

3 We note that Appellants refer to a Schleuter Declaration dated December 9,
2010 in the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 19-20. The Declaration dated December
9, 2010 is not of record and, apparently, was not submitted for the
Examiner’s consideration. Ans. 25. Accordingly, we do not consider the
arguments based on the unsubmitted/unentered Declaration dated December
9, 2010 in our deliberations.
Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

6
not provide data supporting the claimed range of fluorosurfactant
concentrations of up to 4,000 ppm. Id. at 25. Appellants’ rebuttal evidence
identifies only one fluorosurfactant compound, Zonyl FSN®, used to
demonstrate the alleged unexpected results. See Schleuter Declarations,
generally. The claimed invention is not so limited. Neither Declarant nor
Appellants have adequately explained why Zonyl FSN® is representative of
the fluorosurfactant composition comprising a compound having the
structure described by the subject matter of independent claim 1.4 Thus, as
correctly noted by the Examiner (Ans. 24), Appellants’ rebuttal evidence is
not commensurate with the scope of the subject matter described in
independent claim 1. The burden is on Appellants to explain why the
comparative data establishes unexpected results for Appellants’ invention
that is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d
1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Moeggenborg, Lane,
Dupont and Krissa.
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 4-7, 13 and 24-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont and
Krissa and further in view of additional secondary references to Siddiqui,
Carter and Singh. Ans. 10, 12, 14, 16, 17. In addressing these rejections,
Appellants relied on the arguments presented when discussing independent
claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellants did not substantively address or further
distinguish the cited secondary references based on the additional limitations

4 Cf. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 56 (CCPA 1979) (trend in results may be
shown where full scope of claim has not been tested).
Appeal 2011-008597
Application 11/643,519

7
of the rejected claims. Therefore, we also affirm these rejections for the
reasons given above and by the Examiner.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont and Krissa is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Siddiqui is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Carter is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Singh is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa, Siddiqui and Carter
is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moeggenborg, Lane, Dupont, Krissa and Singh is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED
bar