Ex Parte Qian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14314355 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/314,355 06/25/2014
61611 7590 03/29/2018
ROHM AND HAAS ELECTRONIC MATERIALS
CMP HOLDINGS, INC.
c/o The Dow Chemical Company
P.O. Box 1967
Midland, MI 48641
Bainian Qian
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.
76604-US-NP 4532
EXAMINER
PHAM, THOMAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
FFUIMPC@dow.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BAINIAN QIAN, MARTY W. DeGROOT,
and MARK F. SONNENSCHEIN1
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI,
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicants, in the instant Application are said to
be Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc. and Dow Global
Technologies LLC. Appeal Brief dated May 13, 2016 ("Br."), at 4.
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method of chemical mechanical
polishing a substrate using a chemical mechanical polishing pad comprising a
polyurethane polishing layer and an abrasive slurry comprising water and a ceria
abrasive. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method of chemical mechanical polishing a substrate,
compnsmg:
providing a polishing machine having a platen;
providing a substrate, wherein the substrate has an exposed
silicon oxide surface;
providing a chemical mechanical polishing pad, comprising:
a polyurethane polishing layer; wherein the polyurethane
polishing layer is selected to have a composition, a bottom
surface and a polishing surface; wherein the composition
exhibits an acid number of?. 0.5 mg (KOH)/g; wherein the
polyurethane polishing layer contains < 1 ppm abrasive
particles incorporated therein; wherein the polishing surface is
adapted for polishing a substrate;
providing an abrasive slurry, wherein the abrasive slurry
comprises water and a ceria abrasive;
installing the substrate and the chemical mechanical polishing
pad in the polishing machine;
creating dynamic contact at an interface between the chemical
mechanical polishing pad and the substrate; and
dispensing the abrasive slurry onto the polishing surface of the
polyurethane polishing layer of the chemical mechanical polishing
pad at or near the interface between the chemical mechanical
polishing pad and the substrate; and,
wherein at least some of the exposed silicon oxide surface is
polished away from the surface of the substrate.
Br. 17.
2
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) as indefinite;
(2) claims 1-3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Keleher et al. 2 in view of West et al. 3 and Fuchs; 4
(3) claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Keleher in
view of West and Fuchs, and further in view of Rolando et al.; 5 and
(4) claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Keleher in view
of West and Fuchs, and further in view of Birang et al. 6
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (1)
Claim 1 recites that "the polyurethane polishing layer contains< 1 ppm
abrasive particles incorporated therein." Br. 17. The Examiner finds that neither
claim 1 nor the Specification specifies the basis for the ratio "ppm." Final 3. 7 The
Examiner explains:
According to Wikipedia (section 3.3 of ... file "ppm"), ppm
("parts-per-million") may refer to mass fraction, mole fraction or
volume fraction. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be clear
about how to obtain a polyurethane polishing layer incorporating< 1
ppm abrasive particles without knowing the basis that the ppm ratio is
based on.
Final 3. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 is indefinite. Final 2.
The Appellants argue that "one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
specification, claims and the teachings of the prior art would unambiguously
2 US 2008/0111101 Al, published May 15, 2008 ("Keleher").
3 US 2014/0287663 Al, published September 25, 2014 ("West").
4 US 2006/0127666 Al, published June 15, 2006 ("Fuchs").
5 US 5,532,058, issued July 2, 1996 ("Rolando").
6 US 5,964,643, issued October 12, 1999 ("Birang").
7 Final Office Action dated December 24, 2015.
3
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
recognize that the term ppm in claim 1 is part per million by mass." Br. 11
(emphasis added). The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not interpret the term "ppm" in claim 1 to be on a mole basis or a volume basis for
the following reasons:
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that mole ratios are
used when describing reactive systems so as to take advantage of the
stoichiometry of reaction between reactive components to define the
relative amounts of those components required to facilitate the desired
reaction. The component at issue in the present claims-abrasive
particles-will be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of the instant specification and claims to be a non-reactive
contaminant component for which the maximum incorporation level
in the polyurethane polishing layer is defined in claim 1. Given the
non-reactive nature of the abrasive particles in the claimed
polyurethane polishing layer, the associated advantage for using mole
ratios is here non-existent. ...
[Moreover,] one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that
volume ratios are used when describing the porosity of polyurethane
polishing layers. For example, when describing the void volume
within a polyurethane polishing layer. Volume ratios are not used in
the chemical mechanical polishing art when refer[ r Jing to the
incorporation of solid abrasive particles such as recited in claim 1.
Br. 10-11.
In response, the Examiner finds that the Appellants' argument
that volume ratio would not be used when referring to the
incorporation of solid particles in the polishing layer, such as recited
in claim 1, contradicts Appellant's own teaching in paragraph 0039 of
the specification, in which incorporation of microelements, such as
polymeric materials, insoluble phase material, etc., in the polishing
pad is described in term of volume %.
Ans. 6. 8
8 Examiner's Answer dated December 5, 2016.
4
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
The Appellants disclose that a plurality of microelements, not abrasive
particles, "are uniformly dispersed throughout the polyurethane polishing layer."
Spec. i-f 39. The plurality of microelements is said to be "selected from entrapped
gas bubbles, hollow core polymeric materials, liquid filled hollow core polymeric
materials, water soluble materials, an insoluble phase material (e.g., mineral oil)
and a combination thereof." Id. The Appellants disclose that "[p]referably, the
plurality of microelements are incorporated into the polyurethane polishing layer at
0 to 35 vol% porosity." Id. In contrast, the Appellants do not describe the amount
of abrasive particles in the polyurethane layer in terms of porosity. Id. at i-f 45.
The Examiner also finds:
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art may use ppm to describe the amount
of abrasive incorporated in the polishing pad of claim 1 because the
polishing pad would be subjected to reactive environment, such as
slurry containing nitric acid or tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide, and
having pH of 2 or 13 (para. 0050 of the specification); and the
abrasive would inevitably react with the corrosive slurry. It is further
noted that the acid number of the polishing layer in claim 1, which is
defined by Appellant in paragraph 0016, clearly refers to the reactivity
of the polishing layer.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
The nitric acid and tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide referred to by the
Examiner are optional components. Spec. i-f 50. Nonetheless, to the extent that the
abrasive particles in the polyurethane polishing layer inevitably react with those
optional components when they are included in the slurry, the Examiner has failed
to show that the amount of abrasive particles is selected to facilitate a desired
reaction between the unidentified abrasive particles and the nitric acid and/or
tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide.
5
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that "< 1 ppm
abrasive particles" recited in claim 1 means< 1 part per million by mass. For that
reason, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-10 under § 112(b) is not sustained.
2. Rejection (2)
The Examiner finds Keleher discloses a method of chemical mechanical
polishing a substrate having a carbon-doped silicon oxide surface using a
polyurethane polishing pad and a slurry comprising water and a ceria abrasive.
Final 4--5 (citing Keleher i-fi-f 17, 3 8); see also Keleher i-f 17 (disclosing that ceria is
a suitable abrasive material); Keleher i138 (disclosing that a suitable polishing pad
comprises polyurethane). The Examiner finds Keleher is silent about the structure
of the polyurethane polishing pad, namely a polishing pad comprising a layer of
polyurethane, and an acid number of the polyurethane, as recited in claim 1. Final
5; see also Ans. 3. The Examiner turns to West and Fuchs for those limitations.
The Examiner finds West discloses a polishing pad for chemical mechanical
polishing comprising a layer of polyurethane adhered to a stack of polymer layers.
Final 5; Ans. 6-7. The Examiner finds Fuchs discloses "a polyurethane layer that
is capable of remaining adhered to a surface without separating, lifting or
sagging ... , the polyurethane preferably has an acid number of at least 15 mg
KOH/g ([0016])." Final 5 (emphasis omitted). Based on those findings, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Keleher' s polyurethane polishing pad with a layer of polyurethane
adhered to a stack of polymer layers, wherein the polyurethane has an acid number
of at least 15 mg KOH/g. Final 5---6.
6
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
The Appellants argue that "Fuchs is directed to a decorative film for use in
the automotive industry to add functional and decorative features on the exterior
surfaces of vehicles." Br. 14. The Appellants argue:
While Fuchs may arguably teach that the selection of a material
"capable of remaining adhered to a surface without separating, lifting
or sagging ... might be desirable when choosing a decorative film for
use in the automotive industry to add functional and decorative
features on the exterior surfaces of vehicles; there is no indication that
one of ordinary skill in the chemical mechanical polishing art would
look to such factors when selecting the formulation of the polishing
layer for a chemical mechanical polishing pad.
Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner finds West teaches that poor adhesion can result
in delamination during polishing (Ans. 3, 7 (citing West i-f 52) and thus, teaches
that it is important to provide good adhesion. Ans. 7.
The Examiner finds "Fuchs teaches that when bonding a polyurethane layer
to a polymer layer so that the stack ... remain[ s] adhered without delamination
over [a] long period of time ([0005-0006]), the polyurethane layer preferably has
an acid number of at least 15 mg KOH/g ([0016])." Ans. 7.
Based on those findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polyurethane layer in
Keleher's modified polyurethane polishing pad with an acid number of at least
15 mg KOH/g9 to improve adhesion between the polyurethane layer and the other
polymer layers in the polyurethane polishing pad. Ans. 8. The Appellants do not
9 There is no dispute on this record that an acid number of at least 15 mg KOH/g
falls within the acid number range recited in claim 1 (i.e., "2: 0.5 mg (KOH)/g"
(Br. 17)).
7
Appeal2017-003638
Application 14/314,355
direct us to any credible evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the § 103 rejection of
claim 1 is sustained.
The Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of dependent claims 2, 3, 9 and 10. Therefore, the § 103
rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 also is sustained.
3. Rejections 3 and 4
The Appellants argue that Rolando and Birang do not cure the deficiencies
in Keleher, West, and Fuchs in the§ 103 rejection of claim 1. Br. 15-16. For the
reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in Keleher, West, or Fuchs in the
§ 103 rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Rolando or Birang. Therefore, the
§ 103 rejections of claims 5-8 are sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Keleher in view of West and Fuchs is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Keleher in view of West and Fuchs, and further in view of
Rolando is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Keleher in view of West and Fuchs, and further in view of
Birang 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8