2020005273 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 4, 2021

2020005273 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

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. 15/719,020 09/28/2017 Naresh Kumar Penta 81318-US-NP 6846 61611 7590 08/04/2021 ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS CMP HOLDINGS, INC. c/o DUPONT SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC P. O. Box 2915 Wilmington, DE 19805 EXAMINER LU, JIONG-PING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1713 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2021 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): PTO-Legal.PRC@dupont.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NARESH KUMAR PENTA Appeal 2020-005273 Application 15/719,020 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–8, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DuPont de Nemours, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005273 Application 15/719,020 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below (text in bold for emphasis): 1. An aqueous chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition comprising an abrasive of one or more dispersions of elongated, bent or nodular anionic functional colloidal silica particles or their mixture with one or more dispersions of anionic functional spherical colloidal silica particles, and one or more amine carboxylic acids chosen from glutamic acid, aspartic acid, nicotinic acid and picolinic acid having an isoelectric point (pI) from 2.0 to 4.0, wherein the compositions have a pH of from 3 to 5 and further wherein, the amount of the abrasive particles as solids, ranges from 0.01 to 30 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hou US 2015/0221521 A1 Aug. 6, 2015 Glencoe Science, Reaction Rate Laws in Chemistry: Matter and Change 542–543 (2005) Cheemalapati et al., Key Chemical Components in Metal CMP Slurries, in Microelec. Appls. of CMP 214–219 (Y. Li ed., 2008) THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1 and 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hou. 2. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hou in view of Cheemalapati and Glencoe Science. Appeal 2020-005273 Application 15/719,020 3 OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). Upon review of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the Examiner has failed to satisfy the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal for the reasons set forth in the record by Appellant, and add the following for emphasis. On page 4 of the Final Office Action the Examiner states that “it is reasonable to expect that some of the anionic surfactant molecules can collide with silica particles and adsorb on the surface of the silica particles; therefore, the colloidal silica of Hou can be considered as being anionic functional”. Likewise, on page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states that “[i]t appears that colloidal silica particles in Hou’s composition is likely to be anionic functional, because the co-existence of colloidal silica and anionic surfactant is likely to result in some anionic surfactant molecules being adsorbed on the surface of the silica particles”. Appellant disputes this position on pages 4–5 of the Appeal Brief and on page 3 of the Reply Brief. We agree with Appellant that this position is unsupported for the reasons stated therein. We note that “when the PTO seeks to rely upon a chemical theory, in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it must Appeal 2020-005273 Application 15/719,020 4 provide evidentiary support for the existence and meaning of that theory”. In re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 1167–68 (CCPA 1979). In view of the above, we reverse each rejection. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–8 103 Hou 1, 5–8 4, 12 103 Hou, Cheemalapati, Glencoe Science 4, 12 Overall Outcome 1, 4–8, 12 REVERSED