Ex Parte Lefevre et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

13829990 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/829,990 03/14/2013 Paul Andre Lefevre
29050 7590 07/25/2018
Thomas Omholt
Patent Prosecution Agent
CABOT MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION
870 NORTH COMMONS DRIVE
AURORA, IL 60504
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.
8524.P024 1052
EXAMINER
DION, MARCEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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 PAUL ANDRE LEFEVRE, WILLIAM C. ALLISON,
ALEXANDER WILLIAM SIMPSON, DIANE SCOTT,
PING HUANG, LESLIE M. CHARNS,
JAMES RICHARD RINEHART, and ROBERT KERPRICH
Appeal2017-008919 1
Application 13/829,990
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 7, 9, 18, 22-24, 27-30, 33, and 70--75. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interests is NexPlanar Corp.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008919
Application 13/829,990
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a polishing pad having polishing surfaces
with continuous protrusions containing tapered sidewalls. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A polishing pad for polishing a substrate, the polishing pad
compnsmg:
a polishing body having a polishing side opposite a back
surface;
a polishing surface comprising a plurality of protrusions
continuous with the polishing side of the polishing body, each
protrusion comprising a flat surface distal from the polishing
body and sidewalls tapered outwardly from the flat surface
toward the polishing body, wherein the plurality of protrusions
is arranged in a hexagonal-packed pattern;
a solid ring encompassing the plurality of protrusions at
an outer most edge of the polishing side of the polishing body,
the solid ring continuous with the polishing side of the
polishing body and having an inner shape that follows a contour
of the hexagonal-packed pattern of the plurality of protrusions,
wherein the hexagonal-packed pattern of the plurality of
protrusions is interrupted by a plurality of grooves within the
solid ring; and
a solid button region disposed centrally within the
hexagonal-packed pattern of the plurality of protrusions, the
solid button region having a hexagonal shape.
REJECTIONS
Claims 70, 71, 74, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Nakamuri (JP 2005-1837072).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 22, 23 27, 28, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamuri and Ishikawa et al.
(US 6,749,714 Bl, issued June 15, 2004).
2 Reference herein is made to the machine translation of record.
2
Appeal2017-008919
Application 13/829,990
Claims 3, 4, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamuri, Ishikawa, and Amano (US 6,776,699 B2,
issued Aug. 17, 2004).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable
over Nakamuri, Ishikawa, and Allison (US 2011/0171883 Al, published
July 14, 2011).
Claims 72 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamuri and Amano.
OPINION
In all of the rejections above, the Examiner relies on the embodiment
depicted in Figure 6 of Nakamura as satisfying the limitation "a solid button
region disposed centrally within the hexagonal-packed pattern of the
plurality of protrusions, the solid button region having a hexagonal shape,"
which appears in independent claims 1 and 70. First, it is not clear that the
hexagonal region cited by the Examiner is "disposed centrally within the []
pattern of the plurality of protrusions," because is not clear from Figure 6 of
Nakamuri or its associated description where the structure depicted in Figure
6 is located with respect to the plurality or protrusions on Nakamuri's pad.
Second, the fact that the cited hexagonal region contains concave portions,
or voids (Nakamuri, para. 16), renders it questionable at best, whether that
region is reasonably regarded as being solid just because the protrusions
themselves are made from polyurethane (see Ans. 3). Third, and regardless
of the first two points mentioned, the Examiner's rejections fail to account
for hexagonal packing of the surrounding protrusions. Nakamuri illustrates
a rectangular or checkered packing, not a hexagonal packing, of the
3
Appeal2017-008919
Application 13/829,990
protrusions, and the Examiner does not supply any evidence or reasoning to
account for this deficiency. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we
agree with Appellants (App. Br. 11) that, in rejecting the claims, the
Examiner has failed to sufficiently address the limitation quoted above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
4