Ex Parte Tsai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 28, 2010

10382032 (B.P.A.I. May. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STAN TSAI,
FENG Q. LIU,
YAN WANG,
RASHID VAVLIEV,
LIANG-YUH CHEN,
and ALAIN DUBOUST
____________

Appeal No. 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 28, 2010
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and MARK NAGUMO,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 29, 51, and 91 through 93, all of the claims
pending in the above-identified application. See page 5 of the Appeal Brief
Appeal 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032

2
(“App Br.”) filed May 5, 2008. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6
and 134.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “[an] apparatus for local
polishing control in an electrochemical mechanical polishing system” (Spec.
1, para. 0001). Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
illustrative claim 11 reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief as shown below:
1. An apparatus for electrochemically processing a
substrate, comprising:
a pad support;
a removable polishing pad assembly disposed on the pad
support, the pad assembly comprising:
a first counter electrode embedded in an insulator;
at least a second counter electrode embedded in the
insulator and disposed laterally adjacent to the first
counter electrode, the first and second counter electrodes
having a concentric planar orientation; and
a conductive polishing surface that is adapted to
process the substrate, the polishing surface having a
plurality of apertures exposing the first counter electrode
and the second counter electrode, wherein the first and
second counter electrodes are independently electrically
biasable relative to the conductive surface.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following prior art references at page 3 of the Answer
(“Ans.”) dated June 11, 2008:
Landau US 6,261,433 B1 Jul. 17, 2001

1 Independent claims 1, 11, 16, 20, and 28 all require independently
electrically biasable counter electrodes which may be placed in a concentric
planar orientation. ,
Appeal 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032

3
Emesh ‘861 US 2002/0108861 A1 Aug. 15, 2002
Emesh ‘955 US 6,802,955 B2 Oct. 12, 2004
Tsai EP 1 103 346 A2 May 30, 2001
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection set
forth in the Answer:
1. Claims 1 through 7, 11, 16, 17, 51, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Emesh ‘955 and
Emesh ‘861;
2. Claims 8 through 10 and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Emesh ‘955, Emesh ‘861,
and Tsai;
3. Claims 18 through 20, 24 through 26, 28, and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Emesh ‘955,
Emesh ‘861, and Landau; and
4. Claims 21 through 23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Emesh ‘955, Emesh ‘861,
Landau, and Tsai (App. Br. 10).
These § 103(a) rejections are based on the Examiner’s determination
that one of ordinary skill in the art interested in creating different electrically
biasing zones as taught by Emesh ‘861 would have been led to make a
conductive layer 610 of the electrochemical deposition and planarizing
apparatus taught by Emesh ‘955 in the form of segments or independently
electrically biasable (Ans. 3-12 and 18). Appellants traverse these
rejections, arguing, among other things, such collective teachings would not
have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to segment the conductive
layer 610 taught by Emesh ‘955 or make the same independently
Appeal 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032

4
electrically biasable (App. Br. 11-16 and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
August 11, 2008, 3-4).
ISSUE AND CONCLUSION
The dispositive question is: Has the Examiner established that one of
ordinary skill in the art interested in creating different electrically biasing
zones, as taught by Emesh ‘861, would have been led to segment a
conductive layer 610 of the electrochemical deposition and planarization
apparatus taught by Emesh ‘955 and make the resulting segmented
conductive layer 610 independently electrically biasable? On this record, we
answer this question in the negative.
ANALYSIS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Here, Emesh ‘955 teaches an electrochemical deposition and
planarization apparatus 900 comprising a wafer 904, a polishing pad 612, a
platen (602, 604, 606, 608, 610 and 716) and a voltage source 908 (col. 7, ll.
30-54, col. 8, ll. 22-50 and Fig. 9). The polishing pad 612, according to
column 8, lines 50-65, of Emesh ‘955, has a plurality of apertures 905 and
conductive regions 903. The platen taught by Emesh ‘955 has an electrically
conductive (copper) layer 610 exposed by the apertures 905, and an
electrically conductive (copper) layer 606 conductively connected to the
conductive regions 903 within the polishing pad 612 via copper pins 906,
insulating layers and islands 608, 604, and 716 at least partially covering the
electrically conductive layers 610 and 606, and a support member 602
supporting the polishing pad and the platen (col. 7, l. 30 to col. 9, l. 33 and
Fig. 9). The voltage source 908 taught by Emesh ‘955 is coupled to the
electrically conductive layers 610 and 606 (col. 8, ll. 34-44 and Fig. 9).
Appeal 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032

5
The Examiner relies on the support member 602, the electrically
conductive layer 610, and the insulating layer 608 and islands 716 taught by
Emesh ‘955 as corresponding to the pad support, counter electrodes, and
insulator of the claimed apparatus (Ans. 3). The Examiner also relies on the
polishing pad 612 taught by Emesh ‘955 as defining the conductive
polishing surface and apertures recited in the claims (Ans. 3).
Recognizing that Emesh ‘955 does not teach using its electrically
conductive layer 610 (counter electrode) in a segmented form or in an
independently biasable manner, the Examiner refers to Figures 4 and 8 of
Emesh ‘861 (Ans. 4). However, Emesh ‘861 illustrates in its Figure 4 an
electrochemical planarization apparatus employing a power source 90
electrically coupled to conductive contact elements 100 within a polishing
pad 40 via a plurality of electrically conductors 70 and electrically coupled
to a platen 50 (p. 3, para. 0035, p. 4, paras. 0046 to 0047, and Fig. 4).
According to Emesh ‘861, the plurality of electrical conductors 70 can be
positioned in a concentric planar orientation as shown in Figure 8 and can be
supplied with different currents (p. 6, para. 0061 and Fig. 8). The Examiner
has not directed our attention to credible evidence that Emesh ‘861 teaches
or would have suggested using or placing the electrical conductive layer 610
taught by Emesh ‘955 in a segmented form or making the electrically
conductive layer 610 taught by Emesh ‘955 independently biasable. Thus,
the Examiner has not shown error in Appellants’ argument that Emesh ‘861
only teaches or suggests that the conductive regions 903 taught by Emesh
‘955, like the conductive contact elements 100 taught by Emesh ‘861, can be
supplied with different currents via a plurality of conductive pins 906, which
Appeal 2009-003801
Application 10/382,032

6
correspond to the electrical conductors 70 taught by Emesh ‘861, to create
different conductive zones (App. Br. 11-16 and Reply Br. 3-4).
It follows that the Examiner, on this record, has not established that
one of ordinary skill in the art interested in creating different electrically
biasing zones, as taught by Emesh ‘861, would have been led to make
conductive elements 610 of the electrochemical deposition and planarization
apparatus taught by Emesh ‘955 independently electrically biasable and/or in
the form of segments to arrive at the claimed subject matter within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”).
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

sld/cam

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON TX 77056