Ex Parte Kautzsch et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2019

15064916 - (D) (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. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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. § 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~====~ ·· . ...-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. § 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