NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2020

15705017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2020)

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.
15/705,017 09/14/2017 Dolphin Abessolo Bidzo 82088120US01 7072
65913 7590 09/29/2020
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
BRASFIELD, QUINTON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2020 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOLPHIN ABESSOLO BIDZO,
JANUSZ TOMASZ KLIMCZAK, DETLEF CLAWIN, and
RADU MIRCEA SECAREANU

Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP B.V.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to electro-static discharge
(ESD) protection for use in a radio frequency (RF) application. (Spec. 1.)
Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is
reproduced below:
1. An electrostatic discharge, ESD, protection structure
formed within a semiconductor substrate of an integrated circuit
device; the integrated circuit device comprising:
a radio frequency domain;
a digital domain; and
the ESD protection structure characterized by:
an intermediate analog domain, located between the radio
frequency domain and the digital domain, which comprises at
least one radio frequency, RF, passive or active device that
exhibits an impedance characteristic that increases as a radio
frequency of operation increases.
Claims Appendix.
The following rejections are presented for our review: 2
I. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lai (US 2016/0225758 A1, Aug. 4, 2016) in view of
Vanysacker (US 2008/0218920 A1, Sept. 11, 2008).
II. Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lai in view of Vanysacker and further in view of Kireev
(US 2013/0176647 A1, July 11, 2013).

2 The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appears in the Final
Action. (Final Act. 2–7.)
Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017

3
III. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lai in view of Vanysacker in further view of Chen (US 2007/0085144 A1,
Apr. 19, 2007).
OPINION
We consider the record to determine whether Appellant has identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
The Examiner finds Lai teaches most aspects of the claimed invention
including an electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection structure formed
within an integrated circuit device (100) comprising: a radio frequency
domain (106), a digital domain (102) wherein the ESD protection structure
comprises an intermediate analog domain (108) located between the radio
frequency domain and the digital domain. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner
acknowledges that Lai does not disclose that the intermediate domain
includes “at least one radio frequency, RF, passive or active device that
exhibits an impedance characteristic that increases as a frequency of
operation increases,” as recited by claim 1. The Examiner relies on
Vanysacker for teaching an ESD protection structure formed within a
semiconductor substrate of an integrated circuit device (200) comprising a
radio frequency domain (203) and a digital domain (202), and an
intermediate domain (210), located between the radio frequency domain and
the digital domain. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner finds Vanysacker’s
arrangement allows “an ESD current to travel through the intermediate
Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017

4
domain, and further allow for better intermediate domain protection with
lower line resistance at the impedance which can be a significant advantage
in some high speed applications between the two different voltage domains.”
(Final Act. 3; Vanysacker ¶ 36, Fig 2.) The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lai’s device
to have at least one radio frequency (RF) passive or active device that
exhibits an impedance characteristic that increases as a frequency of
operation increases in the device to obtain the advantages described by
Vanysacker. (Final Act. 3–4.)
Appellant argues Lai and Vanysacker do not teach or suggest an
intermediate analog domain, located between the radio frequency domain
and the digital domain as required by claim 1. (Appeal Br. 3–6.) Appellant
argues the Lai reference is silent regarding any teachings of RF domains and
Lai explicitly teaches that the analogue domain includes the power rail 106
and the ground rail 108 but does not teach or suggest any RF domains.
(Appeal Br. 4–5.) Appellant argues Vanysacker relates to an inter-domain
ESD protection circuit between two different voltage domains but is entirely
silent regarding any discussion of RF devices. (Appeal Br. 5.)
We limit our discussion to the Lai and Vanysacker references as
argued by Appellant. The Examiner cited additional prior art to address
various other limitations of the appealed claims.
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellant’s
contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Reply Brief, we
determine that Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8.
Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017

5
The dispositive issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err reversibly in determining that the combination
of Lai and Vanysacker teaches or suggests an intermediate analog domain,
located between the radio frequency domain and the digital domain, which
comprises at least one radio frequency passive or active device that exhibits
an impedance characteristic that increases as a radio frequency of operation
increases as required by independent claim 1?3
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred reversibly in the
determination of obviousness for independent claim 1. The Examiner bears
the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
As Appellant argues, Lai and Vanysacker do not teach or suggest an
intermediate analog domain, located between the radio frequency domain
and the digital domain as required by claim 1. (Appeal Br. 3–6.) The
Examiner relies on Lai element 106 as disclosing a radio frequency domain.
However, Lai discloses “[t]he analogue domain includes an analogue
domain power rail 106.” (Lai, ¶ 44.) The Examiner has failed to establish
that an analog domain is indistinct from a radio frequency domain as utilized
by the claimed invention. Vanysacker teaches an impedance element
provided between ground voltages of two voltage domains (Vanysacker,

3 We limit our discussion to claim 1, the only independent claim.
Appeal 2019-006298
Application 15/705,017

6
¶ 36.) Thus, the combination of Lai and Vanysacker fails to teach or suggest
an intermediate analog domain located between the radio frequency domain
and the digital domain as required by independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of
claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons the Appellant presents
and we give above.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 8 103(a) Lai, Vanysacker 1, 2, 5, 8
3, 4, 6 103(a) Lai, Vanysacker,
Kireev
3, 4, 6
7 103(a) Lai, Vanysacker,
Chen
7
Overall
Outcome
1–8

REVERSED