The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte S.V. BABU, SHARATH HEGDE,
and SUNIL CHANDRA JHA
________________
Appeal 2007-1522
Application 10/631,698
Technology Center 1700
________________
Decided: July 31, 2007
________________
Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-29, 61-63,
and 65. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An aqueous polishing slurry for chemical-mechanical polishing,
comprising particles of MoO2 and an oxidizing agent, said oxidizing agent
comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid,
potassium iodide, potassium iodate, hydroxylamine hydrochloride, and
potassium permanganate.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013