Ex Parte Dyreklev et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 201811922052 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111922,052 12/12/2007 127226 7590 05/10/2018 BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 Peter Dyreklev 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. 0104-0712PUS1 3232 EXAMINER TADAYYONESLAMI, TABASSOM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2018 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER DYREKLEV, GEIRRI. LEISTAD, and GORAN GUSTAFSSON Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JANEE. INGLESE, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 20 and 23--47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 THIN FILM ELECTRONICS ASA is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 The claimed invention is directed to a method for the fabrication of a ferroelectric passive memory device. App. Br. 3--4. Claim 20 is illustrative: 20. A method for the fabrication of a ferroelectric passive memory device, wherein the memory device comprises an array of ferroelectric memory cell defined in a patterned or unpatterned layer of a homogeneous thin film of a ferroelectric polymer which is a memory material, and first and second electrode sets provided so as to contact the ferroelectric layer at opposite sides thereof, such that the ferroelectric memory cell is defined in the ferroelectric polymer memory material between a crossing of an electrode of the first set with an electrode of the second set, whereby a polarization state of the memory cell can be set, a set polarization state switched and detected by applying appropriate voltages to the electrodes contacting the memory cell, and wherein the passive memory device is provided on an insulating portion on or of a substrate, the method comprising the following successive steps a), b) and c ): a) gravure printing a first electrode layer entirely on the insulating portion on or of the substrate with a first printing ink, whereby the first set of electrodes is formed, b) printing or coating a patterned or unpatterned layer of a homogeneous thin film of the ferroelectric polymer memory material on the first electrode layer with a second printing ink, and c) gravure printing a second electrode layer on the ferroelectric polymer memory layer with a third printing ink, whereby the second set of electrodes is formed. (App. Br., Claims Appendix, 1 ). 2 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 Appellants request review of the following rejections from the Examiner's Final Action (see generally Appeal Brief): I. Claims 20, 23-25, 35--44, and 46 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz (US 2004/0209420 Al, published October 21, 2004) and Lee et al., (US 2003/0121429 Al, published July 3, 2003; hereinafter "Lee"). Final Act. 2-6. II. Claims 23, 26, and 27 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz, Lee, and Noguchi (US 2005/0186752 Al, published August 25, 2005). Final Act. 6-7. III. Claims 26 and 28-31 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz, Lee, and Baek (US 2003/0124260 Al, published July 3, 2003). Final Act. 7. IV. Claims 32-34 and 47 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz, Lee, and Shimoda et al., (US 6,420, 190 Bl, issued July 16, 2002; hereinafter "Shimoda"). Final Act. 7-8. V. Claims 26, 28-31, 36, and 37 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz, Lee, and Johansson et al., (US 2003/0056078 Al, published March 20, 2003; hereinafter "Johansson"). Final Act. 8-9. VI. Claim 45 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ljungcrantz, Lee, and Xu (US 2004/0002176 Al, published January 1, 2004). Final Act. 9-10. VII. Claims 20, 24--26, 28-32, 35--40, 42, and 44--46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over of Krieger et al., (US 2004/0159835 Al, published August 19, 2004; hereinafter "Krieger") and Lee. Final Act. 10-13. For Rejection I, based on the primary reference to Ljungcrantz, Appellants present arguments only for independent claim 20 and dependent 3 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 claim 41. See generally App. Br2. For Rejection VII, Appellants contend that the rejection, based on the alternate primary reference to Krieger3, is deficient for all the reasons presented when discussing Rejection I. Id. at 11. In addition, Appellants do not present separate arguments for Rejections II- VI, all based on the primary reference to Ljungcrantz. Accordingly, we select claim 20 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal and address Rejection I with the understanding that our discussion of this rejection applies to all claims under appeal not separately argued. Thus, claims 23--40 and 42--47 stand or fall with independent claim 20. Claim 41 will be addressed separately. OPINION After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 20 and 23- 4 7 for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We add the following for emphasis. Claim 20 The Examiner finds Ljungcrantz discloses a method for the fabrication of a ferroelectric passive memory device that differs from the claimed invention in that Ljungcrantz does not form the electrodes using 2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, ("Final Act.") mailed Feb. 12, 2016; Appeal Brief, filed Oct. 31, 2016 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed Feb. 22, 2017 ("Ans."). A Reply Brief was filed on Apr. 13, 2017; however, it is not cited in this Decision. 3 Appellants' position is that Krieger is cumulative to Ljungcrantz. App. Br. 11. 4 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 printing techniques such as gravure printing. Final Act. 2-3; Ljungcrantz i-fi-1 36, 41, 43 and Figures 2a, 2b, 5. The Examiner finds Lee teaches the use of gravure printing methods as conventional for forming electrodes for capacitor structures. Final Act. 3; Lee i-fi-19-10. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ljungcrantz's method of making a memory device by using the gravure printing method to form the electrodes, as taught by Lee, because gravure printing is known as a suitable technique for making electrodes. Final Act. 4. Appellants acknowledge that Ljungcrantz addresses the same problem as Appellants of damage to a polymer ferroelectric memory material by high temperature electrode deposition processes but argue that Ljungcrantz employs a thermal evaporation technique to deposit the electrodes to address the problem. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, the claimed invention addresses the problem by employing gravure printing of the electrode layers for improved formation of the electrodes at a relatively low temperature. Id. Appellants argue that Lee is directed to using gravure printing to compensate misalignment of patterns caused by variation in the length of the substrate resulting from high temperatures. Id. at 6-7. Appellants contend that the invention described in Lee compensates for a problem caused by a high temperature that would damage the ferroelectric polymer memory material recited in the claims and present in Ljungcrantz. Id. at 8. That is, Lee addresses a problem that is different from the one addressed by the claimed invention and Ljungcrantz. Id. at 10. Thus, Appellants assert that the teachings of Lee are not compatible with those of Ljungcrantz because Lee teaches use of gravure printing to resolve a problem that only occurs in the 5 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 presence of high temperature processes that would damage the polymer ferroelectric thin film. Id. at 8-9. We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 2-3. As acknowledged by Appellants, both Ljungcrantz and Lee address the impact of high temperatures in making electronic devices where the high temperatures impact the substrate upon which an electrode is formed and, thus, impact the product made. App. Br. 5, 8; Ljungcrantz i-f 42 (discussing the need to avoid damage of the memory material); Lee i-f 16 (discussing the problem of expansion and contraction of a substrate by the heat processing or cooling processing (i.e., damage)). It is the undesirable effect resulting from using high temperatures that leads Ljungcrantz and Lee to apply the conductive material on the substrate using electrode application techniques (thermal evaporation in Ljungcrantz (App. Br. 5; Ljungcrantz i-f 42); gravure printing4 in Lee (See Lee i-f 47)) that do not detrimentally contribute to the heating of the substrate/memory material upon which the electrode is deposited. While Appellants argue that Lee is directed to high temperature processes (App. Br. 8), we note that L jungcrantz is also directed to high temperature processes that include the use of sputtering. Ljungcrantz i-f 43. As recognized by Appellants, Lee teaches sputtering at high temperatures is a source of the substrate's expansion. App. Br. 8 (citing to Lee i-f 16). Therefore, contrary to Appellants' contention (App. Br. 8-9), both Ljungcrantz and Lee address a similar problem of minimizing the impact of high temperatures in the manufacturing of an electronic device. Thus, the combined teachings of the 4 Both Appellants and the Examiner agree that gravure printing is not a high temperature printing technique. App. Br. 6; Ans. 2. 6 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 cited art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to use the gravure printing technique of Lee in place of the thermal evaporation of Ljungcrantz to minimize the impact of high temperatures on the substrate of Ljungcrantz. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ"). Appellants' arguments do not persuasively explain why one skilled in the art would be led away from using gravure printing techniques to form an electrode in the memory device of L jungcrantz. Claim 41 Claim 41 requires printing the first electrode layer on an insulating portion by applying a first printing device directly to the insulating portion so that the first electrode layer is in direct contact with the insulating portion. That is, claim 41 requires printing the first electrode directly on an insulation portion by using a first printing device in direct contact with the insulation portion. The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of the cited art would result in directly printing the first electrode on an insulating portion (oxide) of the substrate (silicon). Final Act. 5; Ljungcrantz i-fi-13, 24. We have considered Appellants' argument with respect to claim 41 that Ljungcrantz does not disclose applying a first printing device directly to the insulating portion but are unpersuaded because the argument does not address the Examiner's reasons for combining the teachings of the cited art. App. Br. 1 O; Ans. 3. Instead of addressing the combined teachings of the 7 Appeal2017-007478 Application 11/922,052 cited art, Appellants argue Ljungcrantz individually. App. Br. 10. It is well established that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425--426 (CCPA 1981) ("The test [for obviousness] ... is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Appellants do not adequately explain why the use of Lee's gravure printing in place of L jungcrantz' s thermal evaporation would not result in the gravure printing device directly contacting the insulation portion (substrate layer) as shown in Lee's Figure 2C. Lee i-f 13. Thus, Appellants' argument does not point to error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 20 and 23--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. DECISION/ORDER The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 20 and 23--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation