Ex Parte Tian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

10881924 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEI-CHENG TIAN, WARREN LEE, LOWELL SCOTT SMITH,
YE-MING LI, and JIE SUN
____________

Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
1

This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims 1-3, 6-25, and 52-
62 (App. Br. 2). The Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1
The Real Party in Interest is the General Electric Company (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to capacitive micromachined ultrasound
transducer cell. Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative and are reproduced in the
Claims Appendix of Appellants‟ Brief.
Claims 1-3, 6-16, 18-25, and 52-62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fraser.
2

Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fraser.

Anticipation:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence on this record support
Examiner‟s finding that Fraser teaches Appellants‟ claimed invention?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Appellant‟s Figures 1 and 3 are reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional side view illustrating an exemplary embodiment
of a cMUT transceiver comprising a ring stud” (Spec. 4: ¶ [0012]; see also
id. at 7: ¶ [0033] (“stud 22 may be represented by a single stud, a ring
shaped stud, hereinafter referred to as a ring stud”)). “FIG. 3 is a cross-

2
Fraser, US 6,443,901 B1, issued September 3, 2002.

Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

3
sectional top view of the cMUT transceiver of FIG. 1 along cross-sectional
line 3-3” (id. at ¶ [0014]).
FF 2. “Fraser teaches a capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducer
cell” (Ans. 3; Fraser, Abstract).
FF 3. Fraser‟s Figures 1, 3, and 4j are reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 illustrates a cross-sectional view of a cMUT cell” (Fraser, col. 2, l.
29). “FIG. 3 illustrates the construction of a cMUT cell in accordance with
the principles of … [Fraser‟s] invention” (id. at l. 32-33). FIG. 4j
“illustrate[s] the fabrication of a cMUT transducer in accordance with the
principles of … [Fraser‟s] invention” (id. at 34-36).
FF 4. Fraser‟s transducer cell comprises:
a lower electrode comprising a topside and a bottom side…; a
plurality of support posts [16] disposed on the topside of the
lower electrode [12] and configured to define a cavity…; a
diaphragm [14] disposed on the plurality of support posts [16]
to provide a [first] gap bounded by the diaphragm [14] and the
lower electrode [12] … an upper electrode [20] disposed on the
diaphragm …; and at least one element [or pedestal 28] formed
in the cavity and configured to provide a [second] gap width
between the lower electrode and the upper electrode
[20/diaphragm 14], which is less than the depth of the cavity.
(Ans. 3; see also Fraser, col. 5, ll. 49-50 (“The pedestals could be rounded
(e.g., circular or elliptical)”) and id. at ll. 13-21 (“When the pedestal 28 is
Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

4
formed of a conductive material, [or a high dielectric material,] the sticking
problem is reduced”) (emphasis added).
FF 5. “Fraser teach[es] that the cell structure can be a plurality of cells
adjacent each other” (Ans. 3).
FF 6. “Fraser‟s cells are … configured to be operated both as transmitters
and receivers” (id. at 10).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 6-8:
Appellants contend that “Fraser fails to disclose at least one ring-
shaped element disposed in the cavity of the cMUT device,” as required by
Appellants‟ claim 1
3
(App. Br. 8; id. at 9). Stated differently, Examiner
failed to establish that Fraser teaches a “ring-shaped” pedestal, i.e. a pedestal
that defines a perimeter with a hollow interior (see FF 1: Fig. 3, element 22).
For the foregoing reason we are not persuaded by Examiner‟s
reasoning that Fraser teaches a ring-shaped pedestal because the area
between the pedestal and wall of the cell is “ring-shaped” (see Ans. 5-6).

Claims 9-16 and 18-25:
Claim 9 requires, inter alia, (a) at least one element (i.e. a pedestal)
formed in the cavity defined by the support posts of the cell that is
configured to provide a gap width between the lower electrode and the upper
electrode, which is less than the depth of the cavity and (b) an insulative
layer disposed on at least the at least one element (Claim 9
4
).

3
Claims 2, 3, and 6-8 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
4
Claims 10-16 and 18-25 depend directly or indirectly from claim 9.
Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

5
Examiner recognizes that “Appellants argue that Fraser does not teach
„an insulative layer disposed on the at least one element‟” (Ans. 7 (emphasis
added)). In response, Examiner contends that Fraser‟s “pedestal 28 has at
least a layer of high dielectric insulating material disposed on it,” because
Fraser teaches the use “of a high dielectric material for the pedestal” (id.; FF
4). We are not persuaded.
While Fraser teaches that the pedestal itself can be made of a high
dielectric material, Examiner failed to establish that this material is an Fraser
insulative layer on the pedestal.

Claim 52:
The transducer cell structure of Appellants‟ claim 52 comprises, inter
alia, a first cell configured to operate in a receive mode and a second cell
configured to operate in a transmit mode disposed adjacent the first cell
(Claim 52). Examiner finds that Fraser‟s “cell structure can be a plurality of
cells adjacent each other” and since each of Fraser‟s cells are “capable of
transmitting and receiving” “any two cells … taught by Fraser would be able
to read on the limitations of claim 52 because the limitations as recited do
not require that the first and second cells … be configured to only operate in
either transmit or receive mode” (FF 5-6; Ans. 10). We find no error in
Examiner‟s reasoning. Notwithstanding Appellants‟ contention that Fraser
“discloses all of the cells … act in unison, either as transmitters [or]
receivers,” Appellants fail to identify any structural difference between the
adjacent cells taught by Fraser and those set forth in Appellants‟ claim 52
(see App. Br. 17 (emphasis removed)); see also id. at 18; Cf. Ans. 10).
Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
With regard to claim 52, the preponderance of evidence on this record
supports Examiner‟s finding that Fraser teaches Appellants‟ claimed
invention. The rejection of claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fraser is affirmed. Claims 53-62 are not separately argued
and fall with claim 52.
With regard to claims 1-3, 6-16, and 18-25, the preponderance of
evidence on this record fails to support Examiner‟s finding that Fraser
teaches Appellants‟ claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-16,
and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fraser is
reversed.

Obviousness:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 7. Examiner relies on Fraser as discussed above (Ans. 4).
FF 8. Examiner finds that Fraser “fails to explicitly teach the stud being
disposed in the cavity on the bottom side of the diaphragm” (id.).
ANALYSIS
Examiner reasons that since Fraser suggests a stud disposed in the
cavity on the top side of the lower electrode to increase the charge density at
the center of the device, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in this art at the time of Appellants‟ claimed invention “to
modify Fraser to alternatively have the stud disposed on the bottom side of
Appeal 2011-001587
Application 10/881,924

7
the diaphragm as it is functionally equivalent as having the stud disposed on
the top side of the lower electrode” (Ans. 4-5).
Claim 17 ultimately depends from claim 9. Examiner failed to
establish that Fraser makes obvious an insulative layer disposed on the at
least one element, i.e. pedestal, of claim 9 (see generally App. Br. 19).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claim 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fraser is reversed.

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. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc