Ex Parte Cho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2014

10867007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte WON-HO CHO,
GYOO-CHUL JO, GUE-TAI LEE,
JIN-GYU KANG, BEUNG-HWA JEONG,
and JIN-YOUNG KIM
__________

Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

2

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10. Claims 12-25 are also
pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated
January 30, 2012 (“Br.”).
1. An etchant for forming double-layered signal lines and
electrodes of a liquid crystal display device, consisting
essentially of:
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2);
a phosphate;
F-ions;
an organic acid having a carboxyl group (-COOH);
a copper (Cu) inhibitor that restrains an increase in a
copper etching ratio, the Cu inhibitor including at least one of
an azole compound and a triazole compound;
a hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) stabilizer; and
an additive including salicylic acid derivatives,
wherein each of the double-layered signal lines and
electrodes of the liquid crystal display device includes a first
layer of one of aluminum (Al), aluminum alloy (Al-alloy),
titanium (Ti), titanium alloy (Ti-alloy), tantalum (Ta), and a
tantalum alloy (Ta-alloy) and a second layer of copper (Cu),
wherein the F-ion is a fluoride selected from the group
consisting of potassium fluoride (KF) and sodium fluoride
(NaF), and
Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

3

wherein the organic acid is one of formic acid (HCOOH)
and glycolic acid (HOCH2COOH).
The claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kaufman1 in view of Yang,2 Gotkis,3 Wang,4 Nakazato,5 and Uchida;6
(2) claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaufman in view of Yang, Gotkis, Wang, Nakazato, and Uchida, and further
in view of Lauffer;7 and
(3) claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kaufman in view of Yang, Gotkis, Wang, Nakazato, and Uchida, and further
in view of Nakagawa.8
These rejections are sustained for the reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer dated March 1, 2012 (“Ans.”). We add the following
for emphasis.
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
Claim 1 recites an etchant “consisting essentially of” hydrogen
peroxide, a phosphate, F-ions, an organic acid having a carboxyl group, a

1 US 5,954,997, issued September 21, 1999.
2 US 2003/0146512 A1, published August 7, 2003.
3 US 6,653,224 B1, issued November 25, 2003.
4 US 5,770,103, issued June 23, 1998.
5 US 4,459,216, issued July 10, 1984.
6 US 7,232,529 B1, issued June 19, 2007.
7 US 6,156,221, issued December 5, 2000.
8 US 5,700,389, issued December 23, 1997.
Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

4

copper inhibitor, a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer, and an additive including
salicylic acid derivatives. Br., Claims App’x.
The Examiner finds that Kaufman discloses an etchant comprising
hydrogen peroxide, a phosphate, F-ions, an organic acid having a carboxyl
group, a copper inhibitor, and a hydrogen peroxide stabilizer. Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner finds Kaufman does not disclose that the etchant includes salicylic
acid. The Examiner, however, relies on Wang to establish that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add salicylic acid to the
etchant of Kaufman. Ans. 5-6. The Appellants do not direct us to any
evidence to the contrary.
The Examiner also finds the etchant disclosed in Kaufman is a CMP
(chemical mechanical polishing) solution that includes an abrasive.9 The
Examiner concludes that the “consisting essentially of” language in claim 1
excludes the unrecited abrasive disclosed in Kaufman. Nonetheless, the
Examiner finds that Yang and Gotkis both disclose abrasiveless CMP
solutions. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to omit the abrasive from Kaufman’s CMP
solution “because Yang and Gotkis teach that this is a useful technique for

9 Kaufman discloses that the CMP solution is especially adapted for
polishing multiple metal layers and thin-films associated with semiconductor
manufacturing where one of the layers or films is comprised of copper or a
copper containing alloy. Kaufman, col. 1, ll. 9-16. Kaufman discloses that
“[t]he terms ‘copper’ and ‘copper containing alloys’ are used
interchangeably herein as it is within the understanding of one of skill in the
art that the terms include but are not limited to substrates comprising layers
of pure copper, copper aluminum alloys, and Ti/TiN/Cu, and Ta/TaN/Cu
multi-layer substrates.” Kaufman, col. 5, ll. 9-14.
Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

5

improving polishing characteristics or to provide for gentle polishing, thus
improving the properties of the final product.” Ans. 5.
The Appellants argue that Kaufman, Yang, and Gotkis fail to teach or
suggest “an etchant” and further teach away from the use of “an etchant”
because Kaufman, Yang, and Gotkis all teach mechanical means of
polishing. Br. 9-10. The Appellants contend that the CMP solution
disclosed in Kaufman includes an abrasive and the abrasiveless CMP
solutions disclosed in Yang and Gotkis are used in conjunction with a
polishing pad. Br. 10.
The Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner finds that the CMP solution disclosed in Kaufman is an etchant
because it performs an etching function. That is, the Examiner finds that
Kaufman’s CMP solution “is an etchant because chemical-mechanical
polishing (CMP) takes place by having a chemical reaction, and this
encompasses etching.” Ans. 8. Likewise, the Examiner finds that
Kaufman’s modified abrasiveless CMP solution would also be a chemical
etchant. Ans. 8. The Appellants have failed to establish otherwise.
We recognize that Yang and Gotkis both use abrasiveless CMP
solutions in conjunction with a polishing pad. However, the Examiner
correctly points out that the claims on appeal are not directed to a method
but rather are directed to a composition (i.e., an etchant). Ans. 8. Thus, the
Examiner correctly concludes that Kaufman’s modified abrasiveless CMP
solution “may be used in a process that has both chemical and mechanical
abrasion between the pad and the surface being etched, and still read on the
claims.” Ans. 9.
Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

6

The § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 10 is sustained.
2. Rejection (2)
The Appellants do not present substantively distinct arguments in
support of the patentability of claims 3-5. See Br. 11. Therefore, the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 3-5 is sustained.
3. Rejection (3)
Claim 1 recites that the Cu inhibitor includes at least one of an azole
compound and a triazole compound, and claim 7 which depends from claim
1 recites that “the azole compound is selected from the group consisting of
methylimidazole (C4H6N2) and pyrazole (NHNH2).” Br., Claims App’x.
The Appellants argue “neither Nagakawa [sic, Nakagawa] nor any of
the cited references teaches or suggests an etchant including pyrazole
(NHNH2), as recited in claim 7.” Br. 11.
The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner finds, and the Appellants do not dispute, that “Nagakawa [sic,
Nakagawa] teaches that a useful form of an imidazole for etchants includes
methylimidazole (col.2, line 18).” Ans. 8. It is of no moment that neither
Nakagawa nor any of the other cited references describes the second azole
compound recited in claim 7 (i.e., pyrazole (NHNH2). Cf. In re Gosteli, 872
F.2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (disclosure of an individual chemical
species anticipates Markush-type genus and subgenus claims).
The § 103(a) rejection of claim 7 is sustained.

Appeal 2012-009174
Application 10/867,007

7

C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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)(1).

AFFIRMED

cdc