Aleksey S. Khenkin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019000735 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
14/293,502 06/02/2014 Aleksey S. Khenkin IVS-366/INVEP121US 8056
107581 7590 06/02/2020
Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP (Invensense, Inc.)
200 Park Avenue
Suite 300
Beachwood, OH 44122
EXAMINER
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
DocketInternal@thepatentattorneys.com
docket@thepatentattorneys.com
hmckee@thepatentattorneys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEKSEY S. KHENKIN, FARIBORZ ASSADERAGHI, and
PETER CORNELIUS
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–25 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,1
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Non-Final
Act. 1; Appeal Br. 3.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as InvenSense Inc.
See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed June 2, 2014; Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Feb. 8, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
Nov. 6, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action
(“Non-Final Act.”), mailed Sept. 8, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sept.
6, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention “relates to microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)
sensors.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, Appellant’s invention relates to
sensors, microphone packages, and methods implementing a MEMS
acoustic sensor with a digital signal processor (DSP) located in a back cavity
(with the acoustic sensor) that generates a control signal and calibrates the
MEMS acoustic sensor. See Spec. ¶¶ 7–8; Abstract. Claims 1, 14, and 18
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A sensor, comprising:
a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) acoustic
sensor configured to generate an audio signal and associated with
a back cavity;
a digital signal processor (DSP) located in the back cavity
and configured to generate a control signal, comprising at least
one of an interrupt control signal or an Inter-Integrated Circuit
(I2C) signal and separate from the audio signal, for a system
processor external to the MEMS acoustic sensor, in response to
receiving a signal from the MEMS acoustic sensor, wherein the
control signal is based at least in part on the audio signal, and
wherein the DSP is configured to calibrate the MEMS acoustic
sensor; and
a package comprising a lid and a package substrate,
wherein the package has a port adapted to receive acoustic
waves, and wherein the package houses the MEMS acoustic
sensor and defines the back cavity associated with the MEMS
acoustic sensor.
Appeal Br. 59 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502

3
Name Reference Date
Shuster US 2008/0274395 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Suvanto et al.
(“Suvanto”)
US 2010/0183174 A1 July 22, 2010
Ochs et al. (“Ochs”) US 2014/0072151 A1 Mar. 13, 2014
Furst et al. (“Furst”) US 2014/0348345 A1 Nov. 27, 2014
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 12–14, 18–21, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochs, Suvanto, and Furst.
See Non-Final Act. 3–9.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8–11, 15–17, 22, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ochs, Suvanto, Furst, and Shuster.
See Final Act. 9–11.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–7, 12–14, 18–21, 24, and 25
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 14 and 18, and dependent claims 2–7, 12, 13, 19–21, 24, and 25) as
being obvious over Ochs, Suvanto, and Furst. See Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 11–
13. Appellant contends that Ochs, Suvanto, and Furst do not teach the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–25; Reply Br. 2–9.
Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that Furst does not teach a DSP
(located in the back cavity) configured to calibrate the MEMS acoustic
sensor—“Furst describes first processing with ASIC 304, . . . and then

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (June 2, 2014) after the AIA’s effective date, this
decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502

4
second or subsequent processing with DSP block 504.” “[I]t is Furst’[s]
second processing with DSP block 504 that is cited as disclosing the DSP is
configured to calibrate the MEMS acoustic sensor.” “[N]either Furst’s first
processing via ASIC 304, nor its second or subsequent processing with DSP
block 504, can be said to disclose or render obvious the DSP is configured to
calibrate the MEMS acoustic sensor, as recited in independent claim 1.”
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted); see Appeal Br. 12–25; Reply Br. 2–9.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Furst
(see Furst ¶¶ 39, 40, 43, 45; Figs. 1, 3–5) do not teach or suggest a DSP
located in the back cavity with a MEMS acoustic sensor and the DSP being
configured to calibrate the MEMS acoustic sensor as required by
Appellant’s claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–25; Reply Br. 2–9. It is unclear
from the Examiner’s rejection if (and how) any of Furst’s components
calibrate the MEMS chip (see Fig. 3, element 302) because the charge pump
(CHP) (see Fig. 4, element 402) in the ASIC (see Fig. 3, element 304; Fig. 4,
element 400) charges the MEMS, but the cited portions of Furst don’t
explicitly describe any adjustment of the MEMS. There is no mention of
any other input from the ASIC to the MEMS in the cited portions of Furst’s
disclosure, much less calibration of the MEMS. Further, the Examiner’s
rejection explicitly utilizes two components—the ASIC (see Fig. 3, element
304) in the microphone (see Figs. 1 and 3, elements 102, 300) and the DSP
(see Fig. 5, element 504) in the host (see Figs. 1 and 5, elements 104, 500)—
to control CHP that charges the MEMS. Neither the ASIC, nor the DSP are
explicitly described as performing calibration in the cited portions of the
reference. And, the Examiner cited portions of Furst do not describe the
host as being located in a back cavity with the MEMS. The Examiner does
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502

5
not explain sufficiently how the cited portions of Furst in combination with
Ochs and Suvanto at least suggest the disputed features of DSP calibrating
the MEMS as required by claim 1.4
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ochs, Suvanto, and
Furst renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 18
include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–7, 12, 13, 19–21, 24,
and 25 depend from and stand with their respective base claims.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8–11, 15–17, 22, and 23
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 8–11, 15–17, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ochs, Suvanto, Furst, and Shuster.
See Non-Final Act. 9–11.
The Examiner does not suggest Shuster cures the deficiencies of Furst
(in combination with Ochs and Suvanto) (supra). Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 8–11, 15–17, 22, and
23 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).

4 Our decision should not be construed as concluding that the calibration of a
microphone or MEMS acoustic sensor would not have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Indeed, Shuster appears to teach
calibration. See e.g., Shuster Abstract (“A composite battery capable of
adjusting its own power output in response to predetermined signals”). We
leave it to the Examiner, in the event of further prosecution, to determine if
the calibration of a microphone or MEMS acoustic sensor would have been
obvious in view of the knowledge in the art at the time of the instant
application.
Appeal 2019-000735
Application 14/293,502

6
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–25.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed

1–7, 12–14,
18–21, 24, 25
103 Ochs,
Suvanto, Furst
1–7, 12–14,
18–21, 24, 25
8–11, 15–17,
22, 23
103 Ochs,
Suvanto,
Furst, Shuster
8–11, 15–17,
22, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–25

REVERSED