Ex Parte Kestelli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2017

13187153 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/187,153 07/20/2011 Nevzat Akin Kestelli MAXM-0838 5686
88627 7590
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C (Maxim)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
YECHURI, S IT ARAM AR AO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/20/2017 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):
s stevens @ hdp .com
troymailroom @hdp. com
madams@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEVZAT AKIN KESTELLI and DAVID SKURNIK
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—15, and 27—31. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Maxim Integrated
Products. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as an integrated circuit including
multiple sensor-types. Spec. Abstract. For example, the integrated circuit
could include both a Hall Effect magnetic sensor and a photodiode optical
sensor. Id. at 10:20—11:2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit device comprising:
a semiconductor die including
a substrate doped with a dopant of a first type;
a plurality of regions formed in the substrate, wherein the
plurality of regions is doped with the dopant of the first type,
wherein the plurality of regions is doped more heavily than the
substrate, and wherein the plurality of regions and the substrate
form a first sensor; and
a plurality of wells formed in the substrate, wherein the
plurality of wells is doped with a dopant of a second type,
wherein the dopant of the second type is of opposite polarity
relative to the dopant of the first type, wherein the plurality of
wells and the substrate form a plurality of second sensors,
wherein one of the plurality wells and the substrate form one of
the plurality of second sensors, wherein the plurality of regions
of the first sensor and the plurality of wells of the plurality of the
second sensors share the substrate, and wherein the second
sensor is different than the first sensor;
an electrically insulating package enclosing the
semiconductor die; and
a plurality of electrically conductive leads coupled to the
semiconductor die and extending from the package.
Appeal Br.2 23 (Claims App’x).
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed October 3, 2014
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 1, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the
2
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Leeetal. US 2009/0140220 A1 June 4,2009
(hereinafter “Lee”)
Adkisson et al. US 2009/0283807 A1 Nov. 19,2009
(hereinafter “Adkisson”)
Kavusi et al. US 2010/0145657 Al June 10,2010
(hereinafter “Kavusi”)
Bates et al., Integrated Semiconductor Magnetic Field Sensors, Proceedings
of the IEEE, Vol. 74, Issue 8, 1113 (1986) (hereinafter “Bates”)
Meyer et al., PhotoHall analysis for inhomo geneously excited
semiconductors, J. Appl. Phys. 57, 4638 (1985) (hereinafter “Meyer”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1—6, 8, 10, 12—15, 27, 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Baltes in view of Kavusi and further in view of
Adkisson. Final Act. 4, 14.
Rejection 2. Claims 9, 11, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Baltes, Kavusi, and Adkisson further in view of Meyer.
Id. at 12-13, 16.
Rejection 3. Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Baltes, Kavusi, Adkisson, and Meyer further in view of Lee. Id. at 18.
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 15, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed November 12, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identity the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions,
we are not persuaded that Appellants identity reversible error. Thus, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not present distinct arguments for any claims other than
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7, 20—22. Therefore, consistent with the provisions
of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claims 1,
and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Baltes teaches a semiconductor die which
includes a substrate doped with n-type dopant, regions doped as n+ emitter
diffusion regions which form a first sensor, and a well doped with p-type
dopant. Final Act. 4; see also Baltes 1112—1113, Fig. 5(a). The Examiner
finds that Baltes does not teach a plurality of wells. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner, however, finds that Kavusi teaches including multiple sensors in
a single integrated circuit device. Id.', see also Kavusi Abstract (“one
embodiment includes a plurality of sensor elements ... on a complementary
metal oxide semiconductor substrate . . . .”). Kavusi teaches that the sensors
on its single substrate could be Hall Effect and optical sensors. Final Act. 5;
see also Kavusi ]Hf 46—58. The Examiner also finds that Adkisson teaches
4
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
“commonly used aspects of CMOS integrated image sensors” and teaches
that p-n junctions can be used as a photodiode. Final Act. 6; see also
Adkisson || 3—9, 106—108. Adkisson also teaches an electrically insulating
package and conductive leads. Final Act. 7; see also Adkisson Fig. 29,
11 137-139.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use a
implement a plurality sensors (with the design of each sensor being taught
by Baltes) on a single substrate (as taught by Adkisson) and to use some
sensors as Hall Effect sensors (as taught by Baltes) and others as photodiode
sensors (with Adkisson establishing that the p-n junction already taught by
Baltes is capable of functioning as a photodiode). Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4—5.
The Examiner finds that the combination of these teachings would have been
motivated by a desire to improve sensing accuracy and capability, provide
flexibility, versatility, and additional functionality to the design, and to
protect the die while still connecting it to an external circuit. Final Act. 6—7.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion.
Appellants argue that the p-well of Baltes has a different structure
than that depicted in Figure 1 IB of the current application. For example,
Appellants argue that Baltes’s p-well surrounds the N+ regions whereas
Appellants’ p-well is surrounded by N substrate. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants’ arguments based on Figure 1 IB, however, do not serve to
distinguish Baltes structure from the structure recited in claim 1. Claim 1
does not, for example, recite the shape of the p-well regions. Ans. 5.
Appellants also argue that Baltes p-well serves to isolate Baltes’s Hall
sensor and that using the p-well as a photodiode would “impair the
5
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
isolation.” Appeal Br. 12—13. This argument does not fairly address the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner proposes that, in view of Adkisson, the
Baltes structure would be repeated in a single substrate. Ans. 9. One
instance of the structure would have operated as a Hall sensor while another
instance of the structure operates as a photodiode. Id. Appellants do not
present persuasive evidence suggesting that isolation of a Hall sensor would
be impaired by a photodiode sensor located elsewhere on the substrate.
Appellants also argue that the cited art fails to disclose the combined
structure of the first and second sensors as claimed. Appeal Br. 13—16, 19-
20. In particular, Appellants argue that Kavusi merely teaches sensors on a
substrate but not the structure of those sensors. Appeal Br. 13—14. This
argument, however, fails to fairly address the Examiner’s rejection because
the Examiner’s rejection is based upon the combined references. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Baltes provides particular structure while Kavusi teaches that multiple
sensors (such as those having the structure taught by Baltes) can be
implemented on a single substrate. Ans. 10.
Appellants also attempt to distinguish claim 1 from Adkisson by
noting that Adkisson requires a p-well and n-well whereas claim 1 only
requires one well. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner, however, finds that Baltes
already includes a p-well in an N substrate and that Adkisson establishes that
such a configuration forms a photodiode. Ans. 11—14. As the Examiner
notes, Appellants do not contest this point: “Appellant does not contend that
a p-n junction cannot be reversed biased to use as a photodiode.” Id. at 11
6
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
(quoting Appeal Br. 16). Moreover, we also note that claim 1 does not
forbid the inclusion of additional wells in the substrate.
In a similar argument, Appellants urge that combining Baltes’s Hall
sensor and Adkisson’s photodiode would yield a different structure than the
first and second sensors as claimed. Appeal Br. 16—18. Appellants’
argument again appears to depend upon the scope of claim 1 being
equivalent to the device depicted in Figure 11(b) of the current application.
Id. at 17. The claim, however, does not recite the precise geometry depicted
in the Figure. Ans. 16. Appellants also argue that the combination of Baltes
and Hall would have more total elements (Appeal Br. 18), but claim 1 does
not exclude additional elements. Ans. 16.
Finally, Appellants suggest that the Examiner has not presented
adequate rationale for combining the teachings of Baltes, Kavusi, and
Adkisson. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 3—5. As explained above, however, the
Examiner found that Kavusi teaches multiple sensors on a substrate, Baltes
teaches sensors having the structure of claim 1, and Adkisson teaches that
Baltes p-well would act as a photodiode. Thus, the references suggest the
combination proposed by the Examiner. The Examiner’s combination based
on the teachings of these reference is no more than the predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions. See KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, in addition to the
suggestion and motivations provided by the references themselves, the
Examiner expressly finds various motivations for combining the references
teachings (Final Act. 6—7), and Appellants present no persuasive argument
disputing these motivations.
7
Appeal 2016-001418
Application 13/187,153
Because Appellants have not identified harmful error in the
Examiner’s analysis, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-6, 8-15, and 27-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8