Appeal No. 2006-1360
Application No. 09/427,675
together with (ii) a surfactant, and
wherein said abrasive liquid composition is at a pH of 1-5.
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of unpatentability:
Grover et al. (Grover) 5,759,917 Jun. 2, 1998
Jacquinot et al. (Jacquinot) 6,043,159 Mar. 28, 2000
Claims 17 through 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Jacquinot and Grover.
OPINION
I. THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 17 THROUGH 40 AS BEING
OBVIOUS OVER JACQUINOT IN VIEW OF GROVER
We refer to the examiner’s position regarding this rejection as set forth on pages 2
through 4 of the answer. We add that we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that because the
polishing pad of Jacquinot is soaked with an abrasive composition during polishing, the abrasive
liquid composition would get into the abrasive pad because, and this is not disputed by
appellants.
The examiner recognizes that Jacquinot does not describe having a surfactant in the
abrasive composition. The examiner relies upon Grover for teaching a method of polishing an
oxide layer using a surfactant in an abrasive composition, and refers to column 6, lines 38
through 48 of Grover. Answer, page 2.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious in light of Grover to add a
surfactant because Grover teaches that a surfactant is used to improve the within-wafer-
nonuniformity of the wafer, thereby improving the surface of the wafer and reducing wafer
defects. The examiner refers to column 6, lines 45 through 48 of Grover. Answer, page 3.
Beginning on page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that there is no reasonable suggestion
in the prior art to modify Jacquinot by adding a surfactant to the slurry of Jacquinot. Brief, pages
7 through 8.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007