Ex Parte Kautzsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 4, 2019

15064916 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/064,916 03/09/2016 51092 7590 01/08/2019 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC. Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thoralf Kautzsch UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. INFAP445USA (2014 P50 l 79US 5502 EXAMINER TRAN,DZUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THORALF KAUTZSCH, REIKO FROEHLICH, MIRKO VOGT, MAIK STEGEMANN, ANDRE ROETH, and STEFFEN BIESEL T Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed March 9, 2016 ("Spec."); the Non-Final Office Action dated March 14, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed August 14, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer dated November 14, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed December 21, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Infineon Technologies AG, identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 The claims are directed to sensor devices for integration into integrated circuit structures. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with the disputed language italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A sensor device comprising: a substrate; a first trench in the substrate; a first moveable element suspended in the first trench by a first plurality of support elements spaced apart from one another and arranged at a perimeter of the first moveable element; and a first layer comprising a single continuous material arranged on the substrate to seal the first trench, thereby providing a first cavity containing the first moveable element and the first plurality of support elements. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Barron et al. ("Barron") Regan et al. ("Regan") us 5,919,548 US 2002/0185737 Al REJECTIONS July 6, 1999 Dec. 12, 2002 The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Barron in view of Regan. Non- Final Act. 3-7; App. Br. 4--8. 2 Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 OPINION Appellant argues the claims as a group. App. Br. 4--8. We select claim 1, the only independent claim, as illustrative of the group. Claims 2-8 will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that claims 1-8 are unpatentable over Barron in view of Regan. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Barron teaches all features of claim 1 except an explicit disclosure of "a first layer comprising a single continuous material," which the Examiner finds is disclosed in Regan. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barron in view of Regan to have a first layer comprising a single continuous material in order to provide an air-tight seal. Id. at 4. Barron's Figures 3a through 3r show schematic cross-section views of a series of process steps for forming a multilayer MEMS device in a substrate cavity by a series of micromachining steps that includes one or more CMP steps for locally planarizing recessed layers according to Barron's invention. Barron col. 4, 11. 34--41. Figure 3r of Barron is reproduced below: 50,", MEMS D~vke 200 48~====~ Â·Â· . ...-48 42""E~~~itri~ E~3 ~llfi=:::=7f.;:aS~42 .W: FlG .. 3r 3 Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 Figure 3r illustrates the result after deposition of the protection layer 50 3 and etching a plurality of spaced etch channels 52 down through the various layers overlying the second sacrificial layer 40 to expose portions of the second sacrificial layer 40. Id. col. 11, 11. 14--18. The etch channels 52 may later be plugged, e.g., by a silicon nitride deposition step, for forming a sealed cavity containing the MEMS device 200. Appellant argues that the proposed modification would render Barron as modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 5. Appellant specifically argues that etching of the protection layer 50 of Barron to form channels 52 is essential to exposing the sacrificial material for subsequent dissolution and release of the MEMS device 200 into its final suspended state for operation. Id. at 6. Appellant then contends: [M]odifying Barron to replace the non-continuous protection layer 50 with a single continuous material as taught in Regan is improper because it would prevent the subsequent etch release step from being performed and thus the MEMS device 200 would not be released, resulting in a non-operational device, and thereby rendering Barron as modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. (bolding and italics in original, underlining added for emphasis). Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of reversible error by the Examiner. Although perhaps not explicitly described in the Non-Final Office Action, but as clarified in Answer, the Examiner's rejection is based on modifying Barron by applying a single continuous material (as taught by Regan) on top of Barron's protection layer 50, not as a substitute for protection layer 50. Ans. 5. In addition, the Examiner points out that the 3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 4 Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 Specification envisions such an additional layer. Id. ( citing Spec. ,r 41 4 ("Apertures can be formed in sealing layer ... such that ... first and second sacrificial layers [] are removed via the apertures, such as by a dry-etch process . . . . [T]he apertures can be closed, and additional encapsulation or layer(s) [] can be formed on substrate[] (e.g., over sealing layer[] or a portion thereof.")). The Examiner has provided some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (see In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) by explaining that Regan's single continuous material would provide an air-tight seal to Barron's MEMS/sensor device. Ans. 4. The combination requires no more than the inferences and creative steps that one of ordinary skill in the art would have employed to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (In determining obviousness "a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."). We sustain the rejection of claims 1-8. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-8 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). 4 The Examiner cites to ,r 62 of the Specification, but we find the quoted language in ,r 41. 5 Appeal2018-002275 Application 15/064,916 AFFIRMED 6