Appeal 2007-1522
Application 10/631,698
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Chamberlin US 2001/0013506 A1 Aug. 16, 2001
Kambe US 2001/0045063 A1 Nov. 29, 2001
Canaperi US 6,348,076 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Hasegawa US 2002/0098701 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Kumar US 6,726,990 B1 Apr. 27, 2004
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an aqueous polishing
slurry comprising particles of MoO2 and an oxidizing agent selected from
the recited group. The slurry is used for chemical-mechanical polishing.
Appealed claim 65 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st ¶,
description requirement. The appealed claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
(a) claims 1-7, 10-29, 61-63, and 65 over Canaperi in view of Kumar;
(b) claims 1-7, 10-28, 61-63, and 65 over Chamberlin in view of
Kambe and Canaperi; and
(c) claim 29 over Chamberlin in view of Kambe and Hasegawa.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability, as well as the Specification and Declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we are in full agreement with the
Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied
prior art. Also, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim
65 does not find original descriptive support in the specification.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013