Appeal No. 2002-1757
Application No. 09/994,894
We also agree with the appellants’ argument (see page 9 of
the brief) that the examiner has combined the Kaufman and Farkas
references in a manner which is inconsistent with how one of
ordinary skill in the art would interpret the teachings of each
reference. For example, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to provide the chemical mechanical polishing
slurry of Kaufman with the ammonium cerium sulfate and/or
ammonium cerium nitrate taught by Farkas “because Farkas teaches
that one or more oxidizing/etching species can be used and these
oxidizers [i.e., the aforementioned ammonium cerium sulfate and
ammonium cerium nitrate] are better than oxidation compound
hydrogen peroxide, which is used by Kaufman” (see the fourth page
of the answer). This obviousness conclusion is simply not
supported by the applied reference teachings.
Kaufman’s slurry is specifically formulated to exhibit high
polishing selectivities toward titanium, titanium nitride, and
aluminum (e.g., see the abstract and lines 1-4 in column 3).
Toward this end, patentee uses a peroxy compound such as hydrogen
peroxide as the first of at least two oxidizers because such
peroxy compound oxidizers exhibit good polishing selectivity for
titanium (e.g., see lines 18-32 in column 4). In this regard,
Farkas contains no teaching or suggestion that his ammonium
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007