14100339 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

Ex Parte Dinega et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 2017

14100339 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2017)

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. 14/100,339 12/09/2013 Dmitry DINEGA 100564 3194 29050 7590 09/18/2017 Thomas Omholt Patent Prosecution Agent CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION 870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE AURORA, IL 60504 EXAMINER OLSEN, ALLAN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2017 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 @ c abotcmp .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DMITRY DINEGA, SAIRAM SHEKHAR, RENHE JIA, and DANIEL MATEJA Appeal 2017-001074 Application 14/100,339 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4 and 6—19 under 35 U.S.C. 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite the Specification dated December 9, 2013 (Spec.), Final Office Action dated September 23, 2015 (Final), the Appeal Brief dated February 2, 2016 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner’s Answer dated August 19, 2016 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief dated October 19, 2016 (Reply Br.). 2 Appellant is Applicant, Cabot Microelectronics Corporation, which is according to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2017-001074 Application 14/100,339 § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Babu.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method for selectively removing silicon nitride relative to silicon oxide from a substrate (see, e.g., claim 1) and the composition used in the method (see, e.g., claim 11). The composition used in the method contains a cationic polymer bearing pendant quatemized nitrogen-heteroaryl moieties. Claim 11 is illustrative of the composition: 11. A chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) composition suitable for selectively removing silicon nitride relative to silicon oxide from a substrate comprising silicon nitride and silicon oxide; the composition containing a cationic polymer bearing pendant quaternized nitrogen-heteroaryl moieties', wherein the composition has a pH of about 7.1 to about 9.5 and the cationic polymer is present at a concentration sufficient for at least a portion of the polymer to adsorb on the surface of the abrasive particles to maintain a zeta potential of at least +20 mV on the surface of the particles of the particulate abrasive at a basic pH. Claims Appendix, Appeal Br. 5—6 (formatting and emphasis added). OPINION The Examiner finds that Babu teaches a composition containing the required cationic polymer in paragraph 122 and in claim 9. Ans. 2. However, as pointed out by Appellant, Babu’s polymer is an amphoteric polymer comprising one or more copolymers that comprise an anionic part 3 Babu et al., US 2010/0081281 Al, published April 1, 2010. 2 Appeal 2017-001074 Application 14/100,339 A and a cationic part B. Appeal Br. 3; Babu Tflf 9, 115. The paragraph cited by the Examiner, paragraph 122, only discusses part B of the amphoteric copolymer. Babu 1122. Although part B is polycationic, the copolymer also includes anionic part A. Given that the copolymer includes an anionic part as well as a cationic part, it is not a cationic polymer: It is an amphoteric polymer. Cationic polymers are not ordinarily understood as having anionic groups and the Examiner provides no persuasive evidence indicating that those of ordinary skill in the art would have read “cationic polymer” as including polymers with anionic groups. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence on this record supports Appellant’s argument that Babu fails to describe a composition and method of using the composition having the cationic polymer required by the claims. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 3