Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13955398 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/955,398 07 /31/2013
29050 7590 04/02/2018
Thomas Omholt
Patent Prosecution Agent
CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AURORA, IL 60504
Ping Huang
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.
8524P025 4483
EXAMINER
DION, MARCEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3727
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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 PING HUANG, WILLIAM C. ALLISON,
RICHARD FRENTZEL, PAUL ANDRE LEFEVRE,
ROBERT KERPRICH, and DIANE SCOTT
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 37--41, 44, and 46-60. We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest and assignee of record is NexPlanar Corporation."
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' invention relates to "methods of fabricating low
density polishing pads." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Illustrative Claim
37. A method of fabricating a polishing pad, the method
compnsmg:
mixing a pre-polymer and a chain extender or cross-linker
with a plurality of un-expanded microelements and a
plurality of pre-expanded microelements to form a
mixture, each of the plurality of un-expanded
microelements having an initial size; and
heating the mixture in a formation mold to provide a
molded polishing body comprising a thermoset
polyurethane material and a first plurality of closed cell
pores and a second plurality of closed cell pores
dispersed in the thermoset polyurethane material, the
first plurality of closed cell pores formed by expanding
each of the plurality of un-expanded microelements to a
final, larger, size during the heating, wherein the
heating is performed at a temperature above an
expansion threshold of the plurality of un-expanded
microelements but below a further expansion threshold
of the plurality of pre-expanded microelements such
that a size of each of the plurality of pre-expanded
microelements is essentially the same before and after
the heating to provide the second plurality of closed cell
pores in the molded polishing body.
Fruitman
Blizard
Hirokawa
Kulp
Due sch er
Huang
References
us 5,885,312
US 6,231,942 B 1
US 2002/0016139 Al
US 2005/0171224 Al
US 2010/0003904 Al
US 2012/0094586 Al
2
Mar. 23, 1999
May 15, 2001
Feb. 7,2002
Aug. 4, 2005
Jan. 7,2010
Apr. 19, 2012
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 37--41, 44, 46, 50, and 54---60 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, and Kulp. (Final
Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 47--49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, Kulp, Hirokawa, and Duescher. (Final
Action 7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, Kulp, and Blizard. (Final Action 7 .)
ANALYSIS
Claim 37 is the sole independent claim on appeal, with the rest of the
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 3 8--41, 44, and 46---60) depending directly or
indirectly therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claim 3 7 recites a "method of fabricating a polishing
pad" comprising a "mixing" step in which certain components are mixed "to
form a mixture" and a "heating" step in which the mixture is heated in a
mold "to provide a molded polishing body." (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Huang teaches a pad-fabrication method comprising a
mixing step and a heating step. (See Final Action 2-3.) Huang discloses
"the fabrication of a polishing pad" in which "a pre-polymer 902 and a
curative 904 are mixed to form a mixture," and the mixture is heated in a
mold 900 to provide a "molded homogeneous polishing body 912." (Huang
i-fi-171, 74; see also Figs. 9A-9E.)2
2 Quotations from the applied prior art references in our analysis will omit,
where applicable, the bolding of reference numerals.
3
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
Independent claim 3 7 requires the mixture to comprise "pre-expanded
microelements" and "un-expanded microelements." (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) Huang discloses that its molded body 912 has "a plurality of closed
cell pores 920" and that its mixing step "includes adding a plurality of
porogens 922 to the pre-polymer 902 and the curative 904 to provide the
closed cell pores 920." (Huang i-fi-175-76; see also Figs. 9B, 9G.) The
Examiner finds (see Final Action 3), and the Appellants acknowledge (see
Appeal Br. 12), that Huang's porogens 922 are pre-expanded microelements.
In other words, Huang's to-be-molded mixture comprises pre-expanded
microelements.
As indicated above, independent claim 3 7 requires the mixture to also
comprise on-expanded microelements, and the Examiner finds that Huang
does not teach adding un-expanded microelements to its to-be-molded
mixture. (See Final Action 3.) However, the Examiner finds that Fruitman
teaches a pad-fabrication method comprising "mixing both pre-expanded
and unexpanded microelements." (Id.) And, the Examiner determines that
it would have been obvious, in view of Fruitman, "to provide the method of
Huang with both unexpanded and pre-expanded microelements" in order to
"achieve the predictable result of controlling the porosity and friability of the
material." (Id.)
The Appellants argue that neither Huang nor Fruitman individually
discloses "the use of both un-expanded microelements and pre-expanded
microelements where the un-expanded microelements are increased in size
during pad formation but the pre-expanded microelements are not." (Appeal
Br. 12.)
4
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner's
rejection rests upon the combined teachings of Huang and Fruitman. As
discussed above, Huang teaches that pre-expanded microelements can be
employed to provide pores in a polishing pad; and Fruitman teaches that un-
expanded microelements can be employed in conjunction with expanded
microelements to accomplish the same purpose.
The Appellants also argue that "a person of skill in the art would not
have had any motivation to use the un-expanded microelements from the
epoxy novalac resin composition of Fruitman, with the thermoset
polyurethane materials of Huang." (Reply Br. 4.) According to the
Appellants, Fruitman's mixture "comprises a thick sticky syrup" after
addition of the unexpanded micro balloons, and "[ t ]he expanded
microballoons convert the syrupy mixture to a firm easy-to-mold putty or
dough like substance." (Id.) The Appellants contend that "[t]his is very
different from the composition of Huang, which contains all expanded
microballoons, and thermoset polyurethane materials." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because, in the Examiner's
combination, the unexpanded microelements added to Huang's pad-
fabrication process perform the same function as they did in Fruitman's pad-
fabrication process, specifically to provide and/or control porosity. The
Appellants assert that Fruitman's mixture is "very different" from Huang's
mixture, but they do not identify this alleged difference and/or address
adequately why such a difference would discount Fruitman's teachings on
unexpanded microelements. For example, the Appellants do not contend
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Fruitman as teaching
5
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
that unexpanded micro balloons should only be added to a mixture if it has a
thick-sticky-syrup consistency.
Independent claim 3 7 requires that each of the unexpanded
microelements expands to "a final, larger, size" during heating and that
heating be "performed at a temperature above an expansion threshold" of the
unexpanded microelements. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Fruitman
specifically teaches that its unexpanded microballoons expand when heated
during the molding process. (See Fruitman, col. 6, 11. 8-10.) And, we agree
with the Examiner (see Final Action 4) that one of ordinary skill would infer
that, in order for this expansion to occur, Huang's modified mixture would
need to be heated to a temperature that can make this happen. We note the
Examiner "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim" as "the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" can be taken into
account. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Independent claim 3 7 requires that the size of each of the pre-
expanded microelements "is essentially the same before and after the
heating" and that heating is performed "below a further expansion threshold
of the plurality of pre-expanded microelements." (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that Huang does not teach a specific expansion
temperature limit for its pre-expanded microelements, but that Kulp provides
teachings in this regard. (See Final Action 3.) And, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious for Huang's modified pad-
fabrication method to adopt Kulp's teachings. (See id.)
Kulp teaches that, when already-expanded microspheres are heated
above a certain threshold temperature, they "tend to grow and deform in
6
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
shape" and "further expansion of the expanded micro spheres contributes to
increased non-uniformity of the polishing pads." (Kulp i-fi-f 13, 14.) Kulp
recommends that, "[ w ]hen casting with hollow polymeric microspheres,"
thermal conditions should be controlled so that "the micro spheres' final
volume remains within 7 percent of the pre-casting volume throughout the
cast polyurethane material." (Id. i-f 13.) The Examiner's position, as we
understand it, is that one of ordinary skill would infer, from the teachings of
Kulp, that controlling thermal conditions (i.e., heating temperature) to thwart
further expansion of Huang's pre-expanded microelements would prevent
them from undesirably deforming in shape.
The Appellants argue that "Kulp is teaching controlling the
temperature to allow a small amount but uniform amount of expansion."
(Reply Br. 5.) Insofar as the Appellants are saying that Kulp's pre-expanded
microelements are not essentially the same size before and after heating, we
are unpersuaded by this argument. We are unpersuaded because, in the
claimed context, we consider pre-expanded microelements that stay within a
7%-expansion ceiling during a heated molding step as being "essentially the
same" size before and after the heating. The Appellants do not point to an
indication in the Specification that there is a very low tolerance as to what
qualifies as "essentially the same" size for expandable microelements during
a molding process. And prior art of record establishes that unexpanded
microelements are capable of expanding fifty times their original size (see
Fruitman, col. 6, 11. 13-14 ), setting a high benchmark as to what constitutes
a change in size in the claimed context.
Accordingly, the Appellants do not persuasively establish that the
Examiner errs in determining that the pad-fabrication method recited in
7
Appeal2017-007551
Application 13/955,398
independent claim 37 would have been obvious over the combined teachings
of the prior art. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman,
and Kulp.
The Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately other
than simply submitting that the additional prior art references do not cure the
alleged deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 37.
(See Appeal Br. 13-14.) Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 38--41, 44, 46, 50, and 54---60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, and Kulp; we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 47--49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, Kulp, Hirokawa, and Duescher; and we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 51-53 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Fruitman, Kulp, and
Blizard.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 37--41, 44,
and 46-60.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8