Ex parte Kaeriyama

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 3, 1999

08483777 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 3, 1999)

Application for patent filed June 7, 1995. According1
to appellant, this application is a division of Application
08/311,480, filed September 23, 1994.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOSHIYUKI KAERIYAMA
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application 08/483,7771
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 8
through 14.
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
2
The disclosed invention relates to a micromechanical
device, and to a method of manufacturing the same.
Claim 8 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
8. A method for manufacturing a digital micromirror
device, wherein said method comprises:
forming activation circuitry upon a semiconductor wafer,
wherein said activation circuitry includes surfaces with a
first bias and surfaces with a second bias;
depositing a pad film upon said activation circuitry,
wherein said pad film acts as an insulator between said
surfaces having said first bias and said surfaces having said
second bias;
building a spacer layer upon said pad film;
cutting vias into said spacer layer;
laying a first metal layer upon said spacer layer such
that said first metal fills said vias;
depositing a second metal layer upon said first metal
layer and patterning and etching said second layer to form
mirrors and hinges; and
removing said spacer layer such that said mirror is held
at said second bias and is suspended over said activation
circuitry by said hinges and when activated contacts said
surfaces having said second bias.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Hornbeck 5,083,857 Jan. 28,
1992
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
3
Webb 5,447,600
Sept. 5, 1995
(filed Mar. 21, 1994)
Claims 8 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Hornbeck.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection as to claims 8
through 10 and 14, and we will reverse the obviousness
rejection as to claims 11 through 13.
Appellant acknowledges (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that Webb
discloses a micromechanical device in which the deflectable
beam 20 and the address electrodes 16 are at different biases,
and in which the deflectable beam 20 and the landing
electrodes 14 are at the same bias. According to appellant,
the pad film 26 only acts as an insulator between the landing
electrodes 14 and the deflectable beam 20 because “[t]he pad
film is etched away from the address electrodes [16].”
We agree with appellant that the pad film 26 has been
removed from the address electrodes 16 in the first embodiment
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
4
(Figures 1 and 2) disclosed by Webb. On the other hand, the
second embodiment (Figure 3c) clearly shows a pad film 26 on
the landing electrodes 14 and on the address electrodes 16.
Webb indicates that “FIG. 3C has protective layer 26 on both
the landing electrodes 14 and address electrode 16" (column 5,
lines 52 and 53). Thus, pad film 26 in the second embodiment
(Figure 3c) “acts as an insulator between said surfaces having
said first bias [address electrodes 16] and said surfaces
having said second bias" [landing electrodes 14 and
deflectable beam 20].
The examiner cited Hornbeck for a teaching of a multi-
level deformable mirror device (Figure 7) that is formed via
steps comprising building a spacer layer, and depositing a
second metal layer upon the first metal layer to form mirrors
and hinges as claimed (Answer, pages 4 and 5). Appellant
argues (Brief, page 4) that “[t]he Hornbeck reference does not
overcome the deficiencies of the Webb reference in the
combination rejection.” Such an argument is not a challenge
to the propriety of combining the teachings of Hornbeck and
Webb.
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
5
Inasmuch as Webb discloses a pad film over both the
landing and the address electrodes, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 14.
The obviousness rejection of claim 9 is sustained because
Webb discloses the use of organic polymers for pad film 26
(column 2, line 58 through column 3, line 4).
The obviousness rejection of claim 10 is sustained
because Webb discloses the use of a fluoropolymer for pad film
26 (column 2, lines 67 and 68).
The obviousness rejection of claims 11 through 13 is
reversed because the applied references neither teach nor
would they have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
a pad film of inorganic material.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 8 through
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 8 through 10
and 14, and is reversed as to claims 11 through 13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
6
Stanley M. Urynowicz, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lance Leonard Barry )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 1997-1427
Application No. 08/483,777
7
Charles A. Brill
Texas Instruments Incorporated
P.O. Box 655474, MS 3999
Dallas, TX 75265