Appeal 2007-1522
Application 10/631,698
expressly disclose that the abrasive material may be particles of MoO2 .
Canaperi does state, however, that “[t]he abrasive particles employed
include those conventionally used in polishing slurries,” examples of which
include alumina, silica, ferric oxide, zirconia, ceria and titanium dioxide”
(col. 3, ll. 64-66). Kumar, on the other hand, teaches chemical-mechanical
polishing compositions comprising particles of MoO2 as an abrasive
material (col. 10, ll. 32-37). Accordingly, based on the combined teachings
of Canaperi and Kumar, we find that the Examiner has drawn the proper
legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to select particles of MoO2 as the abrasive material in the polishing
composition of Canaperi. Inasmuch as both Canaperi and Kumar are
directed to aqueous slurries for chemical-mechanical polishing, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed
the requisite reasonable expectation of success in using particles of MoO2 in
the polishing composition of Canaperi.
We do not subscribe to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has
failed to demonstrate what part of Canaperi would have directed one of
ordinary skill in the art to consider Kumar and, having turned to Kumar,
what part of Canaperi would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to
pick MoO2 out of the list of abrasives disclosed by Kumar. We find that
Canaperi’s disclosure of using abrasive particles that are conventionally used
in polishing slurries would have directed one of ordinary skill in the art to
consider other known polishing slurries and their abrasive materials besides
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013