Ex Parte Vacassy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

11491612 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111491,612 0712412006
29050 7590 09/29/2016
Thomas Omholt
Patent Prosecution Agent
CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AURORA, IL 60504
Robert Vacassy
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.
100278 4876
EXAMINER
CHRISTIE, ROSS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1731
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 ROBERT V ACASSY, BENJAMIN BAYER,
ZHAN CHEN, and JEFFREY P. CHAMBERLAIN
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612 1
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15-182, and 20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 This application was the matter of Appeal No. 2010-009144 in which the
Board affirmed the Examiner's rejections.
2 We note that claim 18 depends upon itself. This error should be corrected
in the event of further prosecution.
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612
We AFFIRivL
Appellants' invention is directed to chemical-mechanical polishing
compositions and methods (Spec. i-f 1; claims 1 and 10).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A chemical-mechanical polishing composition
consisting essentially of:
(a) condensation-polimerized silica having an average
primary particle size of about 20 nm to about 30 nm,
(b) an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidizing agent is a
combination of hydrogen peroxide and an iron (III) compound,
( c) a quaternary ammonium compound comprising a
cation with the structure RiR2R3R4N+ wherein Ri, R2, R3, and
R4 are independently selected from the group consisting of C2
C6 alkyls and C7-C12 arylalkyls, and
(d) water,
wherein the polishing composition has a pH of about 2 to
about 4.
10. A method of chemically-mechanically polishing a
substrate, which method comprises:
(i) contacting a substrate with a polishing pad and a
chemical-mechanical polishing composition consisting
essentially of:
(a) condensation-polymerized silica having an average
primary particle size of about 10 nm to about 40 nm,
(b) an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidizing agent is a
combination of hydrogen peroxide and an iron (Ill)
compound,
2
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612
( c) a quaternary ammonium compound comprising a
cation with the structure RiR2R3R4N+ wherein Ri, R2, R3,
and R4 are independently selected from the group
consisting of C2-C6 alkyls and C7-C12
arylalkyls, and
(d) water,
wherein the polishing composition has a pH of about 1 to about
5, and wherein the substrate comprises silicon oxide,
(ii) moving the polishing pad relative to the substrate
with the chemical-mechanical polishing composition
therebetween, and
(iii) abrading at least a portion of the silicon oxide of the
substrate to polish the substrate.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Schroeder et aL; (US 2003/0228763 Al; published
Dec. 11, 2003) in view of Grumbine et al., (US 6,136,711 issued Oct.
24, 2002).
2. Claims 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Grumbine and
Yoshida (US 2005/0274080 Al published Dec. 15, 2005).
Appellants' arguments focus on the subject matter of claim 1 (App. Br.
3-8). Appellants' arguments regarding rejection (2) merely rely on the
alleged deficiencies with regard to the combination of Schroeder and
Grumbine (App. Br. 8-9). Accordingly, claims not separately argued will
stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight in combining the teachings of Schroeder and Grumbine (App. Br.
8). Appellants contend that Schroeder and Grumbine do not specifically
teach that the silica has a particle size in the range of about 20 nm to about
30 nm as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 5).
Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that Schroeder
teaches the silica abrasive particle size should be about 20 nm or greater
(Ans. 2). Schroeder's range overlaps with the claimed range and renders the
claimed range prima facie obvious absent as showing of unexpected results.
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellants allege that the table at i-f 46 of the Specification establishes
that the combination of claimed elements along with the silica abrasive
particles within the claimed range yield "dramatically" and unexpected
higher polishing rates for silicon dioxide (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4). As
noted by the Examiner Appellants' showing in i-f 46 is not commensurate in
scope with the claimed invention. The example in i-fi-1 45 and 46 of the
Specification includes a single embodiment within the scope of the claim
having particular amounts of ferric nitrate, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide,
silica abrasive particles, pH, malonic acid, and biocide. Claim 1 does not
place any limit on the amounts of the silica, oxidizing agent, quaternary
ammonium compound, or water in the composition. Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown that the polishing rates for silica occur over the
entire range of compositions included in the claim. Indeed, the single
embodiment shown in i-f 45 includes materials not required by the claim (i.e.,
malonic acid and biocide ).
4
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is directed to optimizing
silicon dioxide polishing rates while Schroder is directed to etching copper
with a high selectivity over silicon dioxide (App. Br. 6). Appellants contend
that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have known which elements
from Grumbine to combine with Schroeder to achieve high silicon dioxide
polishing rates (App. Br. 6). Appellants argue that Grumbine is directed to
polishing tungsten metal from silicon substrates and Grumbine teaches that a
Fe(III) catalyst such as ferric nitrate may be added to the composition (App.
Br. 6). Appellants contend that the Examiner's reason for combining
Grumbine's Fe(III) catalyst with Schroeder (i.e., to limit the amount of ionic
metallic components) is contradictory because one of ordinary skill would
not add more ionic metallic components if he or she was seeking to limit the
amount of ionic metallic components (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have substituted Grumbine' s
quaternary ammonium compounds for Schroeder's ammonium salt that is
used as an antifoaming agent because there is no recognition that
Grumbine' s quaternary ammonium compound would function as an
antifoaming compound (App. Br. 7-8).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because claim 1 is not
limited to the silicon dioxide removal. Claim 1 is a composition claim that
does not place any limitation on the use of the composition. 3 Schroder is not
3 Even method claim 10 that recites "partially removing silicon dioxide"
does not preclude the combination of Schroeder's and Grumbine' s teachings
because Schroeder teaches a selectivity for metal removal over silicon
dioxide removal. In other words, removal of some of the silicon dioxide
albeit small may reasonably constitute removing a portion of the silicon
dioxide because the claim does not specify any particular amount of silicon
dioxide removed.
5
Appeal2015-001585
Application 11/491,612
limited to the preferred embodiment of copper removal as argued by
Appellants. Rather, Schroeder teaches that the metal on the silicon dioxide
substrate that is abraded may be tungsten (Schroeder i-f 47). Accordingly,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Grumbine' s
teachings regarding the use of Fe(III) catalyst, quaternary ammonium
compounds and silica particles sizes to effect suitable tungsten removal
(Ans. 18). Appellants do not address this finding of the Examiner in the
Reply Brief.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections over
Schroeder and Grumbine, and over Schroeder, Grumbine and Yoshida.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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 ).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6