Ex Parte Tian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201310881924 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation