onecle

Ex Parte Babu et al - Page 1



                          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today                               
                                     is not binding precedent of the Board.                                        

                         UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                                 
                                              ________________                                                     
                               BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                                  
                                           AND INTERFERENCES                                                       
                                              ________________                                                     
                                  Ex parte S.V. BABU, SHARATH HEGDE,                                               
                                         and SUNIL CHANDRA JHA                                                     
                                              ________________                                                     
                                               Appeal 2007-1522                                                    
                                            Application 10/631,698                                                 
                                            Technology Center 1700                                                 
                                              ________________                                                     
                                            Decided:  July 31, 2007                                                
                                              ________________                                                     
                Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and                                                    
                JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.                                                    
                KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                               

                                           DECISION ON APPEAL                                                      
                       This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-29, 61-63,                     
                and 65.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                                  
                       1.  An aqueous polishing slurry for chemical-mechanical polishing,                          
                comprising particles of MoO2 and an oxidizing agent, said oxidizing agent                          
                comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid,                          
                potassium iodide, potassium iodate, hydroxylamine hydrochloride, and                               
                potassium permanganate.                                                                            
                                                                                                                  



Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013