Appeal 2007-0413
Application 10/722,769
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well-
founded to the extent they are based on 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Yano, like Appellants, discloses a CMP process for polishing
materials comprising an aqueous dispersion of multi-component particles
comprising metal oxides, such as alumina, silica, titania, etc. (Yano col. 7, ll.
8-10). The dispersion of Yano comprises the inorganic particles of metal
oxide electrostatically bonded to polymeric particles, and, as such, reads on
the presently claimed multi-component particles of a mixed-oxide. In our
view, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “multi-component
particles of a mixed-oxide” includes the particles of Yano having more than
one component, i.e., a polymer and a metal oxide. The claim language does
not require that the components of the particles be different, separate metal
oxides. In any event, we fully concur with the Examiner that the Yano
disclosure that “[t]hese polymer particles and inorganic particles may be of a
single type, or two or more types may be used in combination” teaches, or at
least suggests, that the inorganic particle may be a mixture of alumina, silica,
titania, etc. (Yano col. 7, ll. 10-12). We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that the pertinent reference disclosure “means that the particles
with single but differing constituents as listed are used in combination” (Br.
8, penultimate ¶).
A principal argument of Appellants is that the particles in the Yano
slurry are agglomerated, unlike the claimed non-agglomerated particles.
However, Yano clearly teaches that the slurry is a dispersion of particles that
preferably has a particle size in the range of 0.01-0.3 micron (Yano, col. 9,
ll. 6-9). Since a dispersion of particles would not be considered an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013