Pankaj Singh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2019

14686988 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019)

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.
14/686,988 04/15/2015 Pankaj SINGH 100531DIV 9111
29050 7590 11/04/2019
Thomas Omholt
Patent Prosecution Agent
CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AURORA, IL 60504
EXAMINER
PHAM, THOMAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2019 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 PANKAJ SINGH and LAMON JONES
_______________
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
Technology Center 1700
_______________
Before GEORGE C. BEST, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11–14, and 16 of
Application 14/686,988. Final Act. (December 7, 2017). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Cabot Microelectronics Corp. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
2
BACKGROUND
The ’988 Application describes methods for the chemical-mechanical
polishing (“CMP”) of molybdenum surfaces. Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the
Specification describes an aqueous suspension of abrasive particles that can
be used as a CMP composition in the polishing of the molybdenum surface.
Id. ¶¶ 2–5.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’988 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
1. A chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP) method for
polishing a molybdenum-containing substrate comprising the
steps of:
(a) contacting a surface of the substrate with a polishing pad
and an aqueous CMP composition comprising an aqueous
carrier having a pH in the range of about 3 to about 6 and
containing, at point of use:
(a) a particulate abrasive selected from the group
consisting of a silica abrasive and an alumina abrasive,
and wherein the abrasive has a positive zeta potential;
(b) a water soluble surface active material, wherein the
surface active material is a cationic polymer; and
(c) an oxidizing agent;
and
(b) causing relative motion between the polishing pad and the
substrate while maintaining a portion of the CMP composition
in contact with the surface between the pad and the substrate for
a time period sufficient to abrade at least a portion of the
molybdenum from the substrate.
Appeal Br. 12 (indentation supplied).
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
3
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Answer 3–4.
2. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida,2 Chen ’608,3 and
Grumbine.4 Answer 4–6.
3. Claims 2, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608,
Grumbine, and Kamiya.5 Answer 6–7.
4. Claims 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608,
Grumbine, and Dysard.6 Answer 7–8.
5. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine and Chen ’608.
Answer 8–9.
6. Claims 2, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine, Chen ’608, and
Kamiya. Answer 9–10.

2 US 2005/0208883 A1, published September 22, 2005.
3 CN 102690608 A, published September 26, 2012. We rely upon the
machine translation that is of record.
4 US 2007/0219104 A1, published September 20, 2007.
5 US 2009/0140199 A1, published June 4, 2009.
6 US 2009/0081871 A1, published March 26, 2009.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
4
7. Claims 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine, Chen ’608, and
Dysard. Answer 10–11.
8. Claims 1, 2, and 137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’8938 and Kamiya.
Answer 11.
9. Claims 4, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, and
Grumbine. Answer 11–12.
10. Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya,
Grumbine, and Dysard. Answer 12–13.
DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claim 14 as indefinite.
The Examiner rejected claim 14 as indefinite. In particular, claim 14
recites, in pertinent part, “about 25 to about 5,000 ppm of a water-soluble
surface active material.” The Examiner concluded that this phrase is
indefinite because it does not specify the basis for the ratio “ppm.” Answer
3. Relying upon Wikipedia, the Examiner states that ppm may refer to a

7 Although the Answer includes claim 5 in its statement of this ground of
rejection, see Answer 11, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim
5, see id. at 13.
8 CN 103265893 A, published August 28, 2013. We rely upon the machine
translation that is of record.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
5
weight fraction, mole fraction, or volume fraction. Id. The Examiner found
that neither the Specification nor claim 14 resolves this ambiguity. Id.
Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
would have understood that, in claim 14, ppm refers to parts per million on a
weight basis. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant specifically argues that a CMP
abrasive composition is a slurry of metal oxide abrasive in an aqueous
carrier containing different chemical components. Id. For this reason,
according to Appellant, the chemical components and the abrasive are
expressed on a weight basis because expressing the concentration of
components of a slurry is a volume or molar ratio would be counterintuitive.
Id.
In response, the Examiner cites Lauer9 and Harris10 as describing the
addition of components to a slurry to concentrations defined in terms of
parts per million by volume of the slurry. Answer 13.
Appellant’s Reply Brief only addresses Lauer, arguing that Lauer
describes addition of an additive to a hydrocarbon slurry that precipitates
suspended solids. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellant,
[p]recipitating suspended solids from bulk crude oil is a much
different art than chemical-mechanical planarization slurries.
The Examiner has used examples from non-analogous art to
support an indefiniteness rejection. Appellants reassert that
those skilled in the art would understand ppm as being on a
weight basis, when the claim is read in light of the
specification.
Id.

9 US 2002/0002320 A1, published January 3, 2002.
10 US 2010/0230325 A1, published September 16, 2010.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
6
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. To begin with, it is not
supported by citation to any evidence of record. As the Federal Circuit has
explained, “[a]ttorney argument is not evidence.” Icon Health & Fitness,
Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Unsupported
attorney argument is entitled to little or no weight.
The Examiner’s position, however, is supported by citation to
evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
necessarily have known that claim 14’s use of the term ppm necessarily
refers to use of the term on a weight basis rather than a volume basis.
Appellant’s argument that Lauer is non-analogous art is not
persuasive because Appellant has not presented us with any evidence
showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of CMP
compositions would use the term in a manner different from a person of
ordinary skill in the art Lauer’s technology. “[U]nsworn attorney argument
. . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”
Gemtron Corp. v. St. Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claim 14 as indefinite.
B. Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, and Grumbine.
Appellant argues for reversal of the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13
without reference to the limitations of any particular claim. See Appeal Br.
5–7. Rather, Appellant argues that “[t]here is nothing that would motivate a
person of skill in the art to use the composition of Yoshida to polish
molybdenum.” Id. at 6. In particular, Appellant argues that neither Yoshida
nor Chen ’608 describes or suggests that a polishing composition developed
for tantalum would have any expectation of success in polishing
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
7
molybdenum. Id. According to Appellant, “[m]etals having comparable
thermal and electrical properties would not necessarily have equivalent
physical or chemical properties relevant to chemical-mechanical polishing.
There is no motivation for the combination, [sic] and no rational expectation
of success.” Id. Appellant further argues that Chen ’608’s abrasive slurry
would not be similar to Yoshida’s abrasive slurry “because Yoshida requires
adjusting the zeta potential of the silica particle[s], which is not part of the
Chen [’608] slurry.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Yoshida describes every
step of the claimed method, but does not describe or suggest that the metal
being polished is molybdenum and does not describe or suggest the specific
structure of the quaternary ammonium cationic surfactant. Answer 4–5. The
Examiner also found that Chen ’608 describes the formation of embedded
metal lines on a substrate by plating copper onto a tantalum seed layer. Id. at
5 (citing Chen ’608, 1, Fig. 1). The Examiner further found that Chen ’608
states that molybdenum can replace tantalum and has the advantages of
lower resistivity and lower cost. Id. The Examiner further found that it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form
a molybdenum seed layer on a substrate that includes a trench, plate the seed
layer with copper, and use Yoshida’s CMP composition to polish away both
the copper and molybdenum in the areas outside the trench to form an
embedded copper line. Id.
As the Examiner found, Yoshida and Chen ’608 describes similar
CMP compositions. See Answer 14. The table below compares these
compositions.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
8
Yoshida Chen ’608
Abrasive Silica particles Silica particles
pH ≤ 6 5–10
Oxidizing agent Hydrogen peroxide Hydrogen peroxide
Zeta potential −5 to 30 mV not specified
Other
Quaternary
ammonium
surfactant
Ammonium salt
Useful for removing Tantalum, Copper Molybdenum, Copper
Id. (citing Yoshida ¶¶ 29, 41–44, 53, 55, 63, 68; Chen ’608, 1–2).
Given the similarity between the CMP compositions, a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to
believe that Yoshida’s CMP composition could remove molybdenum and
copper. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s naked assertion that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
success. This assertion is not supported by evidence (e.g., hardness of a
tantalum seed layer versus a molybdenum seed layer). Accordingly,
Appellant’s attorney argument is not persuasive.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding Chen
’608’s silence regarding the zeta potential of the silica particles. Yoshida
teaches that the zeta potential of the abrasive particles may be adjusted by an
acid, a base, a salt, or a surfactant. Yoshida ¶ 39. As the Examiner explains,
Chen ’608’s slurry contains such agents. In the absence of a showing to the
contrary, the Examiner reasonably assumed, see Answer 15, that the
abrasive particles in the two compositions have similar zeta potentials. See
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
9
Appellant also argues that “[a] person of skill in the art would not
combine the amino compound of Grumbine[] with the method of Yoshida[]
because Yoshida also teaches hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizing agent[] and
does not teach any need for trapping agents.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s
argument rests upon Grumbine’s use of a radical trapping agent to decrease
the amount of oxidation of the amino compound. Appeal Br. 6–7 (citing
Grumbine ¶¶ 7, 8, 18, 32).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner also found that Grumbine describes
a method of chemical-mechanical polishing of a metal layer using a slurry
comprising silica or alumina abrasive particles. Id. (citing Grumbine ¶¶ 6, 9,
37). The Examiner further found that Grumbine describes the slurry as
preferably comprising a quaternary ammonium polymer that acts as a
disbursement and controls the zeta potential of the abrasives to the positive
side. Id. (citing Grumbine ¶¶ 13, 19–21, 54, 55). The Examiner further found
that it would been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use
Grumbine’s quaternary ammonium polymer as the cationic surfactant that
adjust the zeta potential of the abrasives in Yoshida’s invention because
Grumbine’s quaternary ammonium polymer is known to work for the
purpose described in Yoshida.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[a] person of
skill in the art would not combine the amino compound of Grumbine[] with
the method of Yoshida[] because Yoshida also teaches hydrogen peroxide as
an oxidizing agent[] and does not teach any need for trapping agents.”
Appeal Br. 7. As the Examiner explains, the reaction between the oxidizing
compound and the amino compound would occur when using any amino
compound. Answer 16. Since Yoshida describes the use of amino
compounds in the absence of a radical trapping agent, there is no reason to
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
10
believe that it would not be possible to use the amino compounds described
in Grumbine in Yoshida’s CMP composition. Id. Moreover, as the Examiner
also explains, if the reaction between the oxidizing agent and the amino
compound presents a problem, Grumbine teaches the solution, which a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have adopted. Id.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and
13 as unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, and
Grumbine.
C. Rejection of claims 2, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine, and Kamiya.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 2, 14, and 16 should be
reversed based upon the alleged deficiencies of the combination of Yoshida,
Chen ’608, and Grumbine. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant specifically states that
Kamiya does not cure these alleged deficiencies. Id.
As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, and Grumbine.
We, therefore, also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 14, and 16 as
unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine, and
Kamiya.
D. Rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over
the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine, and Dysard.
Appellant argues that Dysard does not cure the alleged deficiencies of
the combination of Yoshida and Chen ’608/Grumbine. Appeal Br. 8.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertion
that the combination of Yoshida, Chen ’608, and Grumbine is deficient. We,
therefore, do not reverse this rejection on that basis.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
11
Appellant also argues that “[t]here is no reason why a person of skill
in the art would select an aminosilane described [in Dysard] for selectively
polishing dielectric materials such as silicon nitride, and combined it with a
composition for polishing metals.” Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner found that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the effective filing date of the invention, in routine
experimentation’s, to surface-modify the silica particles of
Yoshida with the aminosilane taught by Dysard because
Yoshida teaches using a zeta potential-adjusting agent to adjust
the zeta potential to a positive side, and Dysard teaches silica
particles may be surface-modified with aminosilane in order to
have positive charge.
Answer 8.
The Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that an express
suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to
render the substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
This is such a situation. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims
9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over the combination of Yoshida, Chen
’608, Grumbine, and Dysard.
E. Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Grumbine and Chen ’608.
In arguing for the reversal of this rejection, Appellant does not
differentiate between the claims subject to this ground of rejection. See
Appeal Br. 8. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims subject to this ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
12
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 13 should be
reversed because, although Chen ’608 teaches that molybdenum may be a
better barrier material than tantalum, it fails to teach or suggest that a
polishing composition for copper/tantalum, such as the one Grumbine
teaches, would polish molybdenum. Appeal Br. 8.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Grumbine describes or
suggests a CMP composition that is very similar to that described in Chen
’608. See Answer 8. For ease of reference, the table set forth below
compares Grumbine’s CMP composition with that described in Chen ’608.
Grumbine Chen ’608
Abrasive Silica particles Silica particles
pH 2–11 5–10
Oxidizing agent Hydrogen peroxide Hydrogen peroxide
Zeta potential About 10 to about 30 mV not specified
Other
Quaternary
ammonium
surfactant
Ammonium salt
Useful for removing Tantalum, Copper Molybdenum, Copper
See id. (citing Grumbine ¶¶ 6, 14, 20, 23, 24, 40, 43, 55); Chen ’608, 1–2).
Given the similarity between the CMP compositions, a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to
believe that Grumbine’s CMP composition could remove molybdenum and
copper. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s naked assertion that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
success. This assertion is not supported by evidence (e.g., hardness of a
tantalum seed layer versus a molybdenum seed layer). Accordingly,
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
13
Appellant’s attorney argument is not persuasive. See Icon Health & Fitness,
849 F.3d at 1043.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine and Chen ’608. We,
therefore, also affirm the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 13 as unpatentable
over this combination of prior art.
F. Rejection of claims 2, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Grumbine, Chen ’608, and Kamiya.
Appellant first argues that Kamiya “provides no motivation to modify
the method of Grumbine to use alpha-alumina in place of colloidal silica in
the Grumbine composition.” Appeal Br. 9.
As the Examiner found, Grumbine discloses that its CMP composition
may comprise alumina particles, but does not discuss the crystal phase of its
alumina particles. Answer 9 (citing Grumbine ¶ 37). The Examiner also
found that Kamiya teaches a CMP method using a slurry including alumina
particles and describes the alpha phase of alumina as being preferred over
other phases. Id. at 10 (citing Kamiya ¶¶ 71, 72, 80). The Examiner further
found that, based on Kamiya’s description of alpha-alumina as preferred
over other phases, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use alpha-alumina as the alumina in Grumbine’s CMP
composition.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner erred by finding a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combine the descriptions of Grumbine and
Kamiya.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
14
Next, Appellant argues that Kamiya “do[es] not cure the deficiencies
of the combined Grumbine references.” Appeal Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by this argument. As we have discussed above,
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
as obvious over the combination of Grumbine and Chen ’608.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 14, and
16 as unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine, Chen ’608, and
Kamiya.
G. Rejection of claims 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over
the combination of Grumbine, Chen ’608, and Dysard.
Appellant first argues that Dysard does not cure the alleged
deficiencies in the combination of Grumbine and Chen ’608. Appeal Br. 9.
As discussed in § E, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner reversibly erred by finding that the combination of
Grumbine and Chen ’608 describes or suggests each limitation of
independent claim 1. We, therefore, do not reverse the rejection of claims 9,
11, 12, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over the combination of Grumbine, Chen
’608, and Dysard for this reason.
Appellant next argues that “[t]here is no motivation, or expectation of
success, to use the surface treated particle of Dysard, designed to polish
silicon nitride and silicon oxide, with the combined method of Grumbine.”
Id.
As we discussed in § D, this argument is not persuasive of reversible
error. Dysard describes a specific surface modified silica particles having a
zeta potential that overlaps the range set forth in Grumbine. The Examiner,
therefore, correctly determined that it would have been obvious for a person
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
15
of ordinary skill in the art to of used Dysard’s surface-modified silica
particle in Grumbine’s CMP composition. See Fout, 675 F.2d at 301.
H. Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Chen ’893 and Kamiya.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 13 should be
reversed because “Chen [’]893 fails to teach the particle having a positive
zeta potential, as required by the claims on appeal.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
We are not persuaded to reverse the rejection of these claims on this
basis. The Examiner found that Chen ’893 describes a method for polishing
a molybdenum layer using an aqueous slurry having a pH of the 2–7
comprising silica or alumina particles, an oxidizing agent, and a surfactant
that acts as a dispersant. Answer 11. The Examiner further cites Nishimoto11
as evidence that alumina particles in a slurry would have a positive zeta
potential in a pH range of 2–9, which encompasses the pH range of the
slurry in Chen ’893. Id. (citing Nishimoto Fig. 1).
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
reversibly erred by finding that Chen ’893 describes or suggests an alumina
particle having a positive zeta potential.
Appellant also presents a specific argument applicable to claims 5 and
13. Appeal Br. 9. In particular, Appellant argues that Chen ’893 describes
iodate salts as the oxidizing agent in its CMP composition and only
describes the use of hydrogen peroxide in a comparative example that
demonstrates that a hydrogen peroxide is not useful in Chen ’893’s CMP
composition. Id.

11 US 6,582,761 B1, issued June 24, 2003.
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
16
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner conceded that the
argument was persuasive with respect to claim 5 and withdrew the rejection.
Answer 18; see also id. at 13 (withdrawing rejection of claim 5). Claim 13
appears to be identical to claim 5. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection
of claim 13 as unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893 and
Kamiya.12
We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable
over the combination of Chen ’893 and Kamiya and reverse the rejection of
claim 13 on this basis.
I. Rejection of claims 4, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, and Grumbine.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 4, 14, and 16 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, and Grumbine
should be reversed because Grumbine does not cure the alleged deficiencies
of Chen ’893. Appeal Br. 10.
As we discussed in § H, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
reversibly erred in relying on Chen ’893 as describing a particle with a
positive zeta potential. We, therefore, do not reverse the rejection of claims
4, 14, and 16 on the basis of the alleged defects in Chen ’893.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner incorrectly interpreted
Grumbine’s teaching the use of the quaternary ammonium polymer as
solving an alleged instability problem. Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive of reversible error for the
reasons set forth in § B.

12 But see Final Act. 2 (noting possible objection to claim 13 due to double
patenting with respect to claim 5).
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
17
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 4, 14, and
16 as unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, and
Grumbine.
J. Rejection of claims 9, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over the
combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, Grumbine, and Dysard.
According to Appellant, “[t]here is no motivation, or expectation of
success, to use the surface treated particle of Dysard, designed to polish
silicon nitride and silicon oxide, with the combined method of Chen [’893]
for polishing molybdenum.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
As we discussed in § D, use of Dysard’s surface-modified silica in
Chen ’893’s CMP composition represents the mere substitution of a known
equivalent to the abrasive particles described in Chen ’893. Appellant’s
argument, therefore, is not persuasive of the existence of reversible error.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of claims 9, 11, and
12 as unpatentable over the combination of Chen ’893, Kamiya, Grumbine,
and Dysard.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
14 112(b) Indefiniteness 14
1, 4, 5, 13 103 Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine 1, 4, 5, 13
2, 14, 16 103 Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine, Kamiya 2, 14, 16
9, 11, 12, 14, 16 103 Yoshida, Chen ’608, Grumbine, Dysard
9, 11, 12, 14,
16
1, 4, 5, 13 103 Grumbine, Chen ’608 1, 4, 5, 13
2, 14, 16 103 Grumbine, Chen ’608, Kamiya 2, 14, 16
9, 11, 12, 14, 16 103 Grumbine, Chen ’608, Dysard 9, 11, 12, 14, 16
1, 2, 13 103 Chen ’893, Kamiya 1, 2 13
Appeal 2019-001316
Application 14/686,988
18
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 14, 16 103 Chen ’893, Kamiya, Grumbine 4, 14, 16
9, 11, 12 103 Chen ’893, Kamiya, Grumbine, Dysard 9, 11, 12
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11–14, 16
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED