Ex Parte Hoofman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13124291 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/124,291 04/14/2011
65913 7590 09/30/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Romano Hoofman
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.
81056779 US04 5075
EXAMINER
KIM,AHSHIK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2876
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 PA TENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROMANO HOOFMAN1
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Romano Hoofman ("Hoofman") timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection2 of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-
20.3 We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as NXP B.V. (Appeal Brief,
filed 29 August 2014 ("Br."), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 21 July 2014, in response to an Appeal Brief
("Office Action"; cited as "OA").
3 Remaining copending claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 have been objected to by the
Examiner (OA 1, § 8), and are not before us.
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
A. Introduction4
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to wireless interconnects for
integrated circuits ("IC"s). The '291 Specification reveals that wireless
interconnections are achieved in known ICs by providing first (2)5 and
second (4) antennas between which electromagnetic signals (typically radio
frequencies, RF) can be propagated. (Spec. 1, 11. 10-12.) A typical IC with
wireless interconnects,
depicted in Fig. 1, right,
further comprises wired
interconnects, i.e., a plurality
of electrically conductive
signal lines (12) in a
region ( 6), which is provided
on substrate (8).
6
8
{Fig. 1: prior art IC with wireless
interconnect between antennas 2
and4}
In the words of the Specification, "[p ]ropagation of electromagnetic
radiation between the first 2 and second 4 antennae in arrangements of the
4 Application 13/124,291, Wireless interconnect for an integrated circuit,
filed 14 April 2011 as the national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of
PCT/IB09/5461 l, filed 20 October 2009, claiming the benefit of an
application filed in the EPO on 21 October 2008. We refer to the
'"291 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
kind shown in Figure 1 occurs primarily within the substrate 8."
(Id. at 11. 27-29.) The propagation layer, i.e., substrate 8, is typically a
semiconductor material such as silicon. (Id. at 3, 11. 18-19.) As a result,
radiation travelling between antenna 2 to antenna 4 must traverse the region
containing electrically conductive interconnects 12, leading to potential
interference. (Id. at 11. 29-32.)
The Specification describes a prior art suggestion that a high
resistivity Si or high permittivity interlayer dielectric material be placed
below the antennas, with the signal lines below the interlayer. (Id. at 2,
11. 16-18.)
The claimed invention, illustrated in Fig. 2, below, places antennas 2
and 4 between a propagation layer 20, which may be a semiconductive
material such as silicon, and the electrically conductive interconnects 12.
(Id. at 3, 11. 12-19.)
~{;~
"
2., 4.
8.·· "A.-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...-...~-...-...-...-...-...-...-...~
~:2
{Fig. 2 shows IC with wireless interconnect with propagation layer 20}
Propagation layer 20 provides a propagation medium for the wireless
interconnecting signal that avoids the interfering electrically conductive
interconnects 12.
3
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
The Specification reveals further that two substantially identical IC
dies may be stacked, as shown in Fig. 4, reproduced below, right. Thus,
substrate 28, which is substantially the same as substrate 8, is placed on top
of antennas 2 and 4, providing a propagation
22
medium for the wireless interconnecting 26 , "----++-------<'""---_,,
signal that avoids the interfering
electrically conductive interconnects 12.
8
2.4
{Fig. 4 shows a stacked set of dies
forming a wireless interconnect IC}
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues and reads:
A wireless interconnect for an integrated circuit, the wireless
interconnect comprising:
a first antenna and a second antenna
arranged over a plurality of electrically conductive
interconnects; and
a propagation layer configured to allow signals to
propagate between the first antenna and the second
antenna,
wherein the first and second antennae are arranged in
between the propagation layer and the electrically
conductive interconnects.
(Claims App., Br. 10; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
Remaining independent claim 10 is drawn to a method of making
such wireless interconnected ICs.
4
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: 6, 7
A. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in view of Thompson. 8
Al. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Thompson and
Matsunaga. 9
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that Thompson describes a wireless interconnect
meeting the independent claims in Fig. 3 (shown next page) and Fig. 4 and
paragraphs [0008], [0009], and [0072]. (OA 3, last para.) The Examiner
finds that Thompson discloses antennas 26 and 28, a propagation layer
(either layer 1 or layer 2) and "electrically conductive interconnects such as
feeds-the line that feeds both antenna 26 and 28 (see figure 4)."
(Id. at 11. 25-28.)
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 10 December 2014 ("Ans.").
7 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claim 20 for lack of written
description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(1). (Ans. 4, 11. 15-17.)
8 Dane Thompson et al., Multilayer electronic component systems and
methods of manufacture, U.S. Patent Application Publication
2010/0090902 Al (15 April 2010), based on an international application
filed 23 November 2005.
9 Noriaki Matsunaga, Semiconductor device, U.S. Patent
No. 2008/0291092 Al (2008).
5
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
{Thompson Fig. 3 is reproduced below}
Antemias at 14 GHz
(embeddetl fayen
.530
(top layer)
FIG. 3
{Thompson Fig. 3 shows a multilayer patch antenna system}
The Examiner finds further that "[t]he first antenna and second
antenna can be arranged in stacked (or vertical manner) (see figures 16A-18
and paragraph 0096) in which propagation layer comes between the first
antenna and second antenna. As shown in figures 17 and 18, the
propagation layer is provided above the antenna component parts." (OA 3,
1. 28, to 4, 1. 3.) Fig. 16B is reproduced below.
·x s "~--;.:mnrnmrn 111mrn111 g rnm1 :mr m:mg m:mr :x ill! 1111 g
;i~«/; ;\'.~·:;.; ·'~~·;;) t
, , ,_ .. ,, ;'i __ t ,,& .;:1\:;1 (~., s """"I l1R
. ~ .
.... ::~ .:~.· (-:~ -.~·-J ~ LC~-=·· ..... ~:~r$~~: l';JC ~
~,.,;· ··' . , .. •, . _!fu~i~~~~~~1:T~!~~W~~~*~~~~,
... ··-"'.be · 3t'1.32t;;&uialt!lim~1
.. if1-
{Thompson Fig. l 6B shows stacked layers of antennas and feeds}
Hoofman directs its arguments for patentability solely against the
Examiner's findings regarding the electrically conductive interconnects (i.e.,
6
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
the feeds) described in Figs. 3 and 4. (Br. 6-8; Reply10 1-3.) In particular,
Hoofman urges that "Thompson's antenna feeds 30 cannot be regarded as
equivalent to the recited subject matter. As disclosed in paragraph [0073] of
Thompson, the 'feed network for each array was placed in the same layer as
the antenna patches' (emphasis added)." (Br. 6, 11. 7-10.) Hoofman
concludes that "Thompson lacks any disclosure of antenna arranged between
the propagation layer and the electrically conductive interconnects."
(Id. at ll. 10-12.)
These arguments appear to be supported by the weight of the
evidence. Thompson instructs that "substrate 22 supports antenna
patches 26 and 28, as well as antenna feeds 30, and substrate 24 supports
antenna patches 32 and 34, as well as antenna feeds 36."
(Thompson 3 [0072], last sentence.) Thompson also teaches that "[t]he feed
network, for each array was placed in the same layer as the antenna
patches." (Id. at [0073].) The Examiner has not directed our attention to the
location of other electrically conductive interconnects that satisfy the relative
positioning required by claim 1. We conclude that this aspect of the
Examiner's rejection for anticipation is harmfully erroneous.
The Examiner, however, made additional findings concerning the
stacked antennas described in Figs. 16-18, including, in particular, the
finding, which appears to be supported by Fig. l 6B and the other figures,
that "the propagation layer is provided above the antenna component parts."
(OA 4, 11. 2-3.) Hoofman has failed to address these additional findings in
any substantive way. We decline, in the first instance, to scour the record
10 Reply Brief filed 20 January 2015 ("Reply").
7
Appeal2015-003539
Application 13/124,291
for evidence that might support the appellant, and to then evaluate those
findings and weigh them against findings made by the Examiner. Our
principal role is review, not examination de novo.
Hoofman makes no findings regarding alleged failures of the other
reference, beyond the failure to cure the alleged deficiency of Thompson.
We conclude that Hoofman has not indicated harmful error in the
appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8