Ex Parte Saxena

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 7, 2019

15099007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/099,007 04/14/2016 10800 7590 03/08/2019 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kuldeep Saxena 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. 1576-1950 5125 EXAMINER TRAN,DZUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KULDEEP SAXENA Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 and 24--35 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of April 14, 2016 as amended on June 12, 2017 (Spec.), Final Office Action of June 20, 2017 (Final), Appeal Brief of November 20, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of January 31, 2018 (Ans.), and Reply Brief of March 28, 2018 (Reply Br.). 2 Appellants Akustica, Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH are the applicants under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.46 and identified real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 as obvious over Leidl 3 in view of Butt. 4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The claims are directed to a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device package. See, e.g., claims 1, 3, and 35. Each of the claims on appeal requires a corrugated structure somewhere on the package. Id. This corrugated structure may be on an inner region or outer region of a cover (see, e.g., claim 1), on the outer wall of the cover's outer region (see, e.g., claim 3), or on a side wall of the cover's inner region (see, e.g., claim 35). An embodiment having a corrugated structure on the inner region of the cover is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 depicts a cover 212 with a corrugated structure 218 on side walls 2I4a-214d as well as on the upper wall 214e of inner region 214. Spec. ,r 14. An embodiment having a corrugated structure as required by claim 3 is shown in Figure 5F. Figure 5F depicts a corrugated structure 218' on the outer wall of the cover's outer region 216. Spec. ,r 20. Claim 1 further requires an acoustic port. Claim 1 is illustrative: Claim 1. A microelectromechanical system (MEMS) device package comprising: a substrate having a first surface and second surface; a cover having an inner region and an outer region, the cover is coupled to the substrate and defines a cavity between the inner region and the substrate; at least one device disposed within the cavity; and 3 Leidl et al., US 2008/0247585 Al, published October 9, 2008 ("Leidl"). 4 Butt et al., US 4,769,345, issued September 6, 1988 ("Butt"). 2 Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 an acoustic port defined in one of the substrate and the cover and connecting the cavity to an external environment, wherein a corrugated structure is formed on at least one of the inner region and the outer region. Appeal Br. 18 (claims appendix). Claims 3 and 35 do not require an acoustic port. OPINION The Examiner relies on the combination of Leidl and Butt to reject all the claims. Final 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to clearly articulate the reasons for which it would have been obvious to modify Leidl with the teachings of Butt. Appeal Br. 5. With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 3, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred. Because Butt alone is sufficient to render claim 35 obvious, Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 35. Our reasons for so holding follow. Claim 1 Turning first to claim 1, which requires both an acoustic port and a corrugated structure formed on at least one of the inner and the outer region, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a reason to include a corrugated structure in the cover of Leidl. Leidl teaches an electrical module with a built-in MEMS microphone. Leidl ,r 5. The Examiner relies on the embodiment shown in Figure 2A. Final 3. As found by the Examiner, the module of Figure 2A includes a cover (CAP) having an acoustic port (IN), but neither the inner region nor 3 Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 outer region of the cover (CAP) include a corrugated structure. Final 3, Leidl Fig. 2A. Thus, the Examiner turns to Butt. Butt teaches increasing the surface area of a cover including a gettering alloy by milling the cover material to form a grooved surface as shown in Figure 2. Butt col. 8, 1. 64---col. 9, 1. 11. The effect is to increase the surface area available for the gettering reaction between the alloy and oxygen and water vapor in a package atmosphere. Id. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to provide at least one of the inner or outer regions of Leidl' s cover with a corrugated structure "in order to increase the surface available for the oxidation reaction." Final 3, citing Butt col. 9, 11. 9-10. The Examiner's finding of a reason to combine is faulty because there is little persuasive evidence to support a need for increasing the surface available of oxidation in Leidl' s structure. Butt is directed to a method of fabricating a hermetically sealed semiconductor package. Butt col. 1, 11. 55- 65. The package includes a base and a lid bonded together by a sealing glass. Butt col. 4, 11. 34--40. The lid contains a gettering alloy. Id. When heating to melt the glass to hermetically seal the lid to the base, the gettering alloy consumes oxygen and water vapor. Butt col. 5, 11. 11-26. In the words of Butt, "upon initial heating, a base alloy oxidation film is formed and as the temperature begins to rise, a refractory oxide film is formed under the base alloy oxidation film, yielding a duplex alloy film upon the alloy." Butt col. 5, 11. 64---67. As found by the Examiner, Butt describes a corrugated structure. However, Leidl neither describes forming a package by a heating method nor does Leidl provide an indication that a gettering alloy would 4 Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 adequately function in the open cavity of Leidl. The Examiner has not provided adequate evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that increasing oxidation by a gettering alloy would be of use in Leidl' s cover. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or the rejection of the claims that depend from claim 1. Claim 3 Turning to claim 3, this claim requires an outer region comprising an outer wall including a corrugated structure. The Examiner recognizes that Leidl does not teach a corrugated structure on an outer wall of Leidl' s cover (CAP). Final 4. The Examiner finds that Butt teaches the required corrugated structure and, again, concludes it would have been obvious to have included the corrugated structure of Butt in the cover of Leidl to increase the surface available for oxidation. Id. A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's finding. Butt's corrugated structure is on the inner region, not the outer region, of the cover. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 or the rejection of the claims that depend from claim 3. Claim 35 Turning to claim 35, we determine that Butt alone provides a preponderance of evidence supporting the Examiner's rejection. Butt discloses increasing the surface available for oxidation by forming grooves in the inner region of a cover. Butt col. 8, 1. 64---col. 9, 1. 11. Although Butt's Figure 2 does not show grooved sidewalls, the disclosure suggests providing all surfaces exposed to the gas constituents with a larger effective surface area to increase oxidation and this suggests providing grooves in all 5 Appeal2018-004709 Application 15/099,007 available surfaces including the sidewalls. Id. Given that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection of claim 35, we sustain that rejection. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 and 24--34, but we sustain the rejection of claim 35. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6