Ex Parte Babu et al - Page 4



                Appeal 2007-1522                                                                                   
                Application 10/631,698                                                                             

                expressly disclose that the abrasive material may be particles of MoO2 .                           
                Canaperi does state, however, that “[t]he abrasive particles employed                              
                include those conventionally used in polishing slurries,” examples of which                        
                include alumina, silica, ferric oxide, zirconia, ceria and titanium dioxide”                       
                (col. 3, ll. 64-66).  Kumar, on the other hand, teaches chemical-mechanical                        
                polishing compositions comprising particles of MoO2  as an abrasive                                
                material (col. 10, ll. 32-37).  Accordingly, based on the combined teachings                       
                of Canaperi and Kumar, we find that the Examiner has drawn the proper                              
                legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in                      
                the art to select particles of MoO2 as the abrasive material in the polishing                      
                composition of Canaperi.  Inasmuch as both Canaperi and Kumar are                                  
                directed to aqueous slurries for chemical-mechanical polishing, we agree                           
                with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed                       
                the requisite reasonable expectation of success in using particles of MoO2 in                      
                the polishing composition of Canaperi.                                                             
                       We do not subscribe to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has                           
                failed to demonstrate what part of Canaperi would have directed one of                             
                ordinary skill in the art to consider Kumar and, having turned to Kumar,                           
                what part of Canaperi would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to                        
                pick MoO2 out of the list of abrasives disclosed by Kumar.  We find that                           
                Canaperi’s disclosure of using abrasive particles that are conventionally used                     
                in polishing slurries would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art to                      
                consider other known polishing slurries and their abrasive materials besides                       

                                                        4                                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013