Ex Parte Laermer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14446066 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
14/446,066 07/29/2014 Franz LAERMER BOSC.P8919US/11603971 3223
24972 7590 09/05/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANZ LAERMER,1
Ricardo Ehrenpfordt, Jochen Zoellin, Bill Scott, and
Jeff Berryman
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Franz Laermer, Ricardo Ehrenpfordt, Jochen Zoellin, Bill Scott, and
Jeff Berryman (“Laermer”) timely appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Final Rejection2 of claims 2, 4, 9 and 16—18.3 We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Robert Bosch GmbH. (Appeal
Brief, filed 7 June 2016 (“Br”), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 7 December 2015 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3 Remaining copending claims 1, 3, 5, 13, and 14 have been withdrawn
from consideration by the Examiner, and are not before us.
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
OPINION
A. Introduction4
The subject matter on appeal relates to capacitive MEMS
(“microelectromechanical systems”) microphones. In such microphones,
sound pressure causes the deflection of a diaphragm fitted with a deflectable
electrode which is paired with a largely rigid counter-electrode on the
acoustically permeable counter-element of the microphone structure.
(Spec. 1,11. 16—21.) The deflection causes a change in the capacitance of the
structure, which may be detected in standard ways as a change in voltage.
{Id. at 11. 21—26.) Despite the extreme sensitivity, low-noise, and
temperature-stable characteristics of such microphones, they are said to
suffer from a nonlinear diaphragm deflection in response to sound pressure,
leading to harmonic overtones in the measured acoustic spectrum and
intermodulation effects that degrade the performance of the microphone.
{Id. at 2,11. 4—23.)
The inventors seek patent protection for a microphone assembly in
which a pair of identical MEMS microphones are “mounted in such a way
that under the action of sound the spacing between the diaphragm and the
counter-element of the two microphone structures changes in opposite
directions.” {Id. at 3,11. 1 4.) As a result, the signals from the two
microphones are out of phase with one another by 180°. {Id. at 11. 10—12.)
4 Application 14/446,066, Microphone assembly having at least two MEMS
microphone components, filed 29 July 2014, claiming the benefit of an
application filed in Germany on 30 July 2013. We refer to the
“’066 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.”
2
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
The useful signal from the microphones is said to be in the first harmonic
oscillation, and the useful signal from one microphone is said to have the
opposite sign of the useful signal from the other microphone. {Id. at 11. 12—
15.) The unwanted non-linear portions of the signal are said to have the
same sign, despite the phase shift. {Id. at 11. 15—17.) As a result, according
to the ’066 Specification, the non-linear signals can be subtracted and
eliminated or significantly reduced, while the useful signal can be doubled,
or at least significantly amplified. (Id. at 11. 17—21.)
A preferred embodiment is illustrated in Figure 1, shown below.
(Figure 1: microphone assembly 100[5] with MEMS components 10 and 20}
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
3
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
MEMS component 10 comprises diaphragm 12, bearing an electrode
(not shown), and opposed stationary acoustically permeable counter­
element 13, bearing a complementary electrode (also not shown), which
together form a capacitor. MEMS component 10 is mounted on substrate 11
over opening 14. (Spec. 7,1. 33, to 8,1. 15.) MEMS component 20 is
similarly mounted on substrate 21 over opening 24. {Id. at 8,11. 16—17.)
The mounted MEMS components are mounted on bearer 31 over through-
opening 32. {Id. at 11. 18—20.) Bearer 31 is a circuit board that may have
ASIC (“Application Specific Integrated Circuit”) components for processing
the signals from the MEMS capacitors {id. at 9,11. 17—20, and is connected
to MEMS components 10 and 20 by wires 35 {id. at 11. 13—16).
Sole independent claim 18 is representative and reads:
A microphone assembly, comprising:
at least one first MEMS component [10] and
at least one second MEMS component [20],
each including at least one micromechanical microphone
structure; wherein:
each microphone structure includes
(i) a diaphragm configured to be deflected by sound
pressure and provided with at least one diaphragm
electrode of a capacitor system, and
(ii) a stationary acoustically permeable counter-element
acting as a bearer for at least one counter-electrode of
the capacitor system;
the two MEMS components are
(i) arranged such that, under the influence of the sound
pressure, the respective spacing between the diaphragm
and the counter-element of the two microphone
structures changes in opposite directions, and
(ii) each mounted separately upon a respective
substrate [11, 21] via which the two MEMS
components are attached to a bearer [31];
4
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
the bearer [31] is a circuit board that is positioned
between the two substrates [11,21] and
between the two MEMS components [10, 20]; and
the two MEMS components [10, 20], the two
substrates [11, 21], and the bearer [31] together enclose
a space [14, 24] that is only acoustically permeable
through the two stationary acoustically permeable
counter-elements.
(Claims App., Br. 7 (not numbered); some indentation, paragraphing,
bracketed labels, and emphasis added.)
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection6,7:
A. Claims 2, 4, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of the combined teachings of Reining8 and Sato.9
A1. Claims 2, 4, 9, and 16—18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combined teachings of
Reining, Sato, and Ryan.10
6 Examiner’s Answer mailed 12 August 2016 (“Ans.”).
7 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
8 Friedrich Reining, Microphone, WO 2012/001589 A2 (2012).
9 Akiyoshi Sato, Condenser Microphone, U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2008/0192963 A1 (2008).
10 William Ryan and Anthony Minervini, Microphone having reduced
vibration sensitivity, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0303274 A1
(2010).
5
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
We find initially that Laermer does not present arguments for the
separate patentability of any claim apart from claim 18. All claims therefore
stand or fall with claim 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Laermer urges the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that Reining
discloses a microphone assembly in which “the two MEMS components, the
two substrates, and the bearer together enclose a space.” Rather, in
Laermer’s words, “Figs. 3 and 4 of Reining clearly show that the bearer 50
is positioned between the two substrates 14a, 14b, but not between the two
MEMS components 10a, 10b; in fact, the bearer 50 surrounds the two
MEMS components 10a, 10b.” (Br. 3,11. 19—22.) An annotated version of
Reining Figure 3 is shown below.
13b 10b
r\ *
12b 32/
- * ; —4n»—r ■
ITTTfi'f« ,rririTfi
13b
./ I
tok
l 1
V.
12a
30
(Reining Figure 3 shows a MEMS capacitive microphone assembly
(annotation added)}
6
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
Laermer urges further that “the space enclosed on two sides by the
two MEMS components 10a, 10b is, at most, also enclosed by the bearer 50,
but is not in [sic] enclosed by the substrates 14a, 14b.” {Id. at 11. 27—29,
citing Reining 7,11. 21—23.) The cited passage in Reining reads, “[t]he two
semiconductor dies are bonded together using a laminate structure 50 which
carries connection lines to the membrane and back electrode contacts.”
(Reining 7,11. 21—23.)
In the Examiner’s words, “Reining’s Figs. 3 and 4 show that
membranes, 12a and 12b, as well as the counter-electrodes, 13a and 13b, do
not extend all of the way to the bearer 50 thereby requiring the substrate
surfaces to participate in enclosing the spaced (Ans. 13,11. 19—22.) As
shown in annotated Figure 3, the contacts between the MEMS, the substrate,
and the bearer (which Reining, in the passage just quoted, identifies as a
circuit board) and the enclosed space are indicated by the added arrows and
text-boxes. Laermer does not direct our attention to a definition of the term
“between” in the Specification—and our review has not revealed one to us—
that would exclude the walls of bearer 50 from being “positioned between
the two substrates and between the two MEMS components” as required by
claim 18. We are thus not persuaded of harmful error in the Examiner’s
findings in this regard.
The Examiner finds that the only difference between the microphone
assembly disclosed by Reining and the claimed assembly is that the
“stationary acoustically permeable counter elements” are facing inward to
the space in Reining’s Figure 3 (13a, 13b), and, therefore, the final
limitation, that the enclosed space is “only acoustically permeable through
7
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
the two stationary acoustically permeable counter-elements,” is not met.11
(FR, para, bridging 4—5.)
The Examiner finds that Sato discloses, in Figures 11 and 17 (not
reproduced here), similar capacitive MEMS microphone assemblies that
have similar MEMS components in which the acoustically permeable
counter-elements are directed outwards in the case of Figure 11, and inwards
in the case of Figure 17. (FR 5.) The Examiner reasons that because either
configuration can be used in a microphone assembly, the routineer would
have had a reasonable expectation of successfully inverting Reining’s
components “such that the backside of each of the substrates 14a, 14b are
attached to bearer 50, thereby yielding the same closed space as that shown
in Sato’s Fig. 11, wherein the count-element 13a, 13b are arranged outside
of the diaphragms 12a, 12b.” {Id. at 5,11. 13—16.)
Laermer does not address Sato in the principal Brief on Appeal,
perhaps believing that, in an interview, “the Examiner acknowledged that
the rejection relies on the addition of Ryan.”12 (Br. 3,11. 5—9.) Laermer’s
11 The term “acoustically permeable” does not appear to be defined,
formally, in the Specification. The acoustically permeable counter-element
is depicted as having holes in it, so the sound can travel through the same
medium (i.e., typically the atmosphere) from the source to the diaphragms,
and both the Examiner and Appellants appear to have adopted this meaning.
For purposes of this appeal, we follow, without deciding, this interpretation.
We note, however, that sounds are transmitted through many solids (e.g.,
stethoscope diaphragms, window panes) often with only minor attenuation.
We leave to the sound discretion of the Examiner and Laermer the
determination, in the event of further examination, of whether further
exploration of this point is likely to be useful.
12 The Examiner held an “Applicant-initiated interview” with counsel for
Laermer on 29 February 2016, which is memorialized in the Interview
8
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
criticisms of the Examiner’s reliance on Ryan, however, assume that the
inversion suggested by the Examiner would necessarily result in the
attachment of the two substrates 14a, 14b to each other, rather than to circuit
board 50. {Id. at 4, 1st full para.)
We find no persuasive merit in this argument, as the Examiner’s
reason to include Ryan was to provide an example of a bearer, identified by
the Examiner as spacer layer 302, or substrate layers 304 or 306, in a MEMS
microphone. While the structure presented in the Brief at page 4 bears a
familial resemblance to the structure illustrated in ’066 Specification
Figure 3a, which is not within the scope of claim 18, the Examiner’s
reasoning that the two orientations taught by Sato would have suggested
corresponding orientations of the MEMS elements in Reining has not been
challenged substantively.
Laermer urges further, however, that the inverted configuration would
have been understood as being contrary to the teachings of Reining, because
the two microphones would be placed “at a significant distance apart, and,
Summary mailed 3 March 2016. While somewhat terse, as are most
interview summaries, we find no indication that the Examiner abandoned the
rejection based solely on the combined teachings of Reining and Sato alone.
Had Laermer wanted to make this point clear, a written communication
could have been filed, memorializing Laermer’s understanding of the results
of the interview. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.2, “All business with the Patent and
Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. . . . The action of the
Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record
in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise,
stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or
doubt.” See also the Applicant recordation instruction on the Interview
Summary, inviting a statement of the substance of the interview within one
month of the mailing of the Summary.
9
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
significantly, one of the membranes would then be at a significant distance
from the shared sound inlet.” (Br. 4, last para., emphasis added.)
We do not find this argument persuasive of harmful error. First,
Laermer provides us with no evidence regarding what distance would be
significant. We decline to accord weight to argument unsupported by
evidence of record. In particular, as long as the wavelength of the sound is
much longer than the distance between diaphragms 12, each will experience
approximately the same disturbance (assuming the diaphragms themselves
do not significantly alter the sound wave). Laermer has not explained why
these microelectromechanical devices would have been expected to have
dimensions so large that distances between paired MEMS components
would be a “significant” fraction of the wavelength of sound.
In conclusion, we are not persuaded of harmful error in the appealed
rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 2, 4, 9, and 16—18 is
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
10