Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

13749803 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131749,803 01125/2013
27820 7590 05/17/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sangchae Kim
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.
2867-550C2 9531
EXAMINER
TIJNGE, BRYAN R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGCHAE KIM, TONY IVANOV,
and JULIO COSTA
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS) devices integrated into a semiconductor die. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A semiconductor die comprising:
a substrate; and
a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) device comprising:
a fixed capacitive plate formed by a first metallization layer
over the substrate;
a movable capacitive plate formed by a second metallization
layer and having a first end that is suspended over the fixed capacitive
plate; and
an insulator layer formed between the fixed capacitive plate and
the movable capacitive plate;
wherein the movable capacitive plate is configured to move the
first end toward the fixed capacitive plate upon actuation of the
MEMS device and the insulator layer is positioned to prevent the
movable capacitive plate from contacting the fixed capacitive plate
such that the MEMS device has a first capacitance upon actuation of
the MEMS device.
Wan
Hunt
Ikehashi
References and Rejections
US 2004/0219706 Al
US 2006/0208823 A 1
US 2006/0226735 Al
Nov. 4, 2004
Sept. 21, 2006
Oct. 12, 2006
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wan.
2
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wan and Hunt.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wan and Ikehashi.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Wan teaches "a movable capacitive plate .. .
having a first end that is suspended over the fixed capacitive plate .. .
wherein the movable capacitive plate is configured to move the first end
toward the fixed capacitive plate upon actuation of the MEMS device," as
recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1
The Examiner cites Wan' s Figures 8A-8C, and maps "a fixed
capacitive plate" to Wan's fixed signal electrode 6, and "a movable
capacitive plate" to Wan's object 41, which Wan refers to as a suspended
medial plate 41 or a suspended main electrode 41 (Wan ,-i 83). See Final
Act. 3; Wan ,-i 83 ("a suspended medial plate 41 that form a suspended main
electrode 41 "). The Examiner finds:
Wan does not disclose a movable capacitive plate having
a first end wherein the movable capacitive plate is configured to
move the first end toward the fixed capacitive plate upon
actuation in the embodiment of Figure 8.
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
Final Act. 4.2
Comparison of bridge and cantilever type MEMS devices
of Figures SB and 9N of Wan showing the overall length and
center point of the respective devices illustrating the shift of the
medial location of the fixed plate 6 with respect to the bridge
type device toward an end of the cantilever type device .
. . . Upon actuation of the device, the free end of the
cantilever bends toward the substrate from the fixed end and
therefore all points extended from the fixed end move toward
the substrate and the fixed capacitive plate there on, and
therefor[ e] Wan teaches the movable capacitive plate is
configured to move the first end toward the fixed capacitive
plate upon actuation of the MEMS device.
Ans. 4-5.
Appellants argue:
[T]he medial portion of the suspended main electrode
41-and not a "first end," as recited in Appellants claim 1-is
configured to move toward the fixed signal electrode 6 in Wan.
This is clearly shown by Figures 8A-8C of Wan .....
The relationship between the fixed signal electrode 6 and
the suspended main electrode 41 in Figure 9N (other Figure
cited by the Patent office as the cantilever embodiment) is no
different than the relationship described in Figures 8A-8C.
Figures 9A-9N are related to a fabrication process described in
steps 1A-12A of Wan. Figure 9N is related to step 12A of
Wan, which is the last step of the fabrication process. However,
the fixed signal electrode 6 is formed in step IA described by
Figure 9A, and the suspended main electrode 41 is formed in
step 6A described by Figure 9H. As explicitly stated by Wan in
,-i 0089, the MEMS device in Figure 9H of Wan is provided just
2 The Examiner also cites Wan's paragraph 101, but does not adequately
explain how that paragraph's general language teaches "wherein the
movable capacitive plate is configured to move the first end toward the fixed
capacitive plate upon actuation of the MEMS device," as required by claim
1. See Wan ,-i 101.
4
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
like the MEMS device shown in Figure 8A after the completion
of step 6A. Steps 7 A through 12A do not change the
relationship between the suspended main electrode 41 and the
fixed signal electrode 6 of Wan since steps 7 A-12A are simply
steps for packaging the MEMS device after step 6A.
Reply Br. 3, 5; see also App. Br. 5-7.
We disagree with the Examiner.
First, Appellants correctly argue that Wan' s Figure 8C shows the
middle portion-not the first end-of the suspended main electrode 41
moves toward the fixed signal electrode 6 upon actuation of the MEMS
device. See Wan, Fig. 8; ,-i 83 ("FIG. 8C depicts the suspended main
electrode 41 is been pulled down and held in the DOWN or ON position by
a DC bias voltage being applied on the signal electrode 6, while the
suspended main electrode 41 (via grounded line 3) is grounded.").
Second, the Examiner' assertion that "[ u ]pon actuation of the device,
the free end of the cantilever bends toward the substrate from the fixed end
and therefore all points extended from the fixed end move toward the
substrate and the fixed capacitive plate there on" (Ans. 4-5) is unsupported
by the record. Wan's Figure 9N is associated with "process sequence in
making and packaging an MEMS RF switch" (,-i 83), and the associated
paragraphs do not discuss the actuation of the MEMS device. See Wan
,-i,-i 83-95. Therefore, the Examiner has not adequately shown the
comparison between Wan's Figures 8B and 9N teaches "wherein the
movable capacitive plate is configured to move the first end toward the fixed
capacitive plate upon actuation of the MEMS device," as required by claim 1
(emphasis added).
Third, the Examiner does not cite adequate support for the assertion
that "comparison of ... Figures 8B and 9N of Wan showing the overall
5
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
length and center point of the respective devices illustrating the shift ...
toward an end .... "(Ans. 4). The Examiner has not established that Figure
9N is created from modifying Figure 8B, or that those two figures even
belong to the same embodiment. To the contrary, the associated Wan's
paragraphs 83-95 are silent on moving the suspended main electrode 41 (or
suspended medial plate 41). See Wan ,-i,-i 83-95. Nor do those paragraphs
suggest any basis for such movement. See Wan ,-i,-i 83-95. In any event, the
Examiner has not established Wan's Figures 8B and 9N are drawn to scale,
as "it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes
if the specification is completely silent on the issue." See Hockerson-
Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'!, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted). As a result, the Examiner has not adequately shown the
comparison between Wan's Figures 8B and 9N teaches "wherein the
movable capacitive plate is configured to move the first end toward the fixed
capacitive plate upon actuation of the MEMS device," as required by claim
1 (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-1 7 for similar
reasons.
For similar reasons, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 18, and corresponding dependent
claims 19-2 0.
6
Appeal2014-009289
Application 13/749,803
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7