Appeal No. 96-2939
Application No. 08/205,423
The examiner’s rejection is based upon the disclosure in
the secondary reference to Lowen of the oxidizing agents of
the claimed subject matter, i.e., sulfate, and perchlorate.
We find that Lowen neither discloses nor suggests to the
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made that one would have used either copper
sulfate or copper perchlorate of the claimed subject matter in
polishing a metal layer.
As to the utilization of a sulfate ion required by the
claimed subject matter, we find no equivalency between Lowen’s
disclosure of persulfate ion and sulfate ion. Accordingly,
patentee’s use of persulfate ion neither discloses nor
suggests the use of sulfate ion.
With respect to the use of a perchlorate ion, one would
first have to choose a perchlorate ion from the group of
oxidizing agent taught by Lowen. See column 2, lines 19-20.
Once having made that choice, no additional direction is given
by patentee. Only a broad class of perchlorate ion is taught.
The Lowen reference offers no guidance to one having ordinary
skill in the art as to the use of a particular cation.
Indeed, the only cation disclosed by Lowen with any oxidizing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007