Appeal 2007-1522
Application 10/631,698
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claim 65 under § 112,
1st ¶, description requirement. We agree with the Examiner that the original
Specification fails to convey the concept to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the polishing composition of the present invention lacks “sufficient
H2O2 to react with said particles of MoO2.” Vas-cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appellants’
original Specification provides no disclosure regarding the amount of H2O2,
if any, in the polishing composition. The Specification disclosure referenced
by Appellants pertains to a buffing step, not the polishing step, which
employs a dilute suspension of hydrogen peroxide which reacts with MoO2
to remove residual amounts thereof that may remain on the surface. While
Appellants rely upon Declaration evidence submitted by three present
inventors regarding the instability of H2O2 in composition with MoO2 , we
agree with the Examiner that these Declarations do not establish that the
Specification, as originally filed, conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the polishing composition should comprise any particular level of H2O2.
We next consider the § 103 rejection over Canaperi in view of Kumar.
There is no dispute that Canaperi, like Appellants, discloses an aqueous
polishing slurry for chemical-mechanical polishing comprising abrasive
particles and one of the presently claimed oxidizing agents, such as nitric
acid, potassium iodate, and potassium permanganate. Canaperi fails to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013