Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

13598962 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/598,962 08/30/2012
27820 7590 08/23/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seungbae Lee
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.
2867-653D 2916
EXAMINER
ALANKO, ANITA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNGBAE LEE, SHENG-SHIAN LI, and KUSHAL
BHATT ACHARJEE
Appeal2014-010002
Application 13/598,962
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-34. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for forming a
device that includes a component, such as a micromechanical system
(MEMS) resonator, in a manner such that the component is capable of
moving within a cavity formed beneath the component during operation of
the device (Spec. i-f 6).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
Appeal2014-010002
Application 13/598,962
1. A method of forming a device comprising:
• providing a substrate;
• forming a sacrificial layer over the substrate;
• forming an field layer around the sacrificial layer;
• planarizing the sacrificial layer and the field layer;
• forming a component over the planarized sacrificial layer and
the planarized field layer, the component having a first
electrode and a second electrode and a single crystal wafer
disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the component includes anchors disposed substantially
over the field layer; and
• releasing the sacrificial layer with an etchant having a
selectivity for the sacrificial layer, thereby forming a cavity
beneath the component, where the component freely moves
within the cavity during operation of the device, wherein the
etchant does not release the field layer and the component such
that the field layer remains below the anchors.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Shiono
Kim
Song
Ha
US 6,580,196 Bl
US 6,762,471 B2
US 7 ,095,298 B2
US 7 ,456,041 B2
Jun. 17,2003
Jul. 13, 2004
Aug.22,2006
Nov. 25, 2008
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-32 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim in view of Shiono, as evidenced by Ha. Claims 1
and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kim in view of Shiono, as evidenced by Ha, and further in view of Song.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellants and
the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness adduced by the Examiner in
light of the countervailing argument proffered by Appellants, we determine
2
Appeal2014-010002
Application 13/598,962
that the Appellants' arguments are insufficient to outweigh the evidence of
obviousness marshalled by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness rejections for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Final Office Action and in the Examiner's Answer. We offer the
following for emphasis only.
Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group and present
substantially the same argument with respect to independent claims 1 and 19
subject to the Examiner's first stated obviousness rejection and do not add
additional substantive argument in traversing the Examiner's second stated
obviousness rejection. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal as to both of the stated
rejections.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's determination that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a single
crystal wafer, as taught by Shiono, in forming the piezoelectric material of
Kim and the Examiner's determination that Kim, as modified by Shiono,
teaches or would have suggested a method of forming a device that
corresponds to the method of representative claim 1 but for Appellants
arguing that Kim does not show that its component (resonator 100) "freely
moves within the cavity during operation of the device" as required as a
capability of the device component formed according to Appellants' method
(Br. 5; claim 1; Final Act. 2-3). In this regard, Appellants maintain that the
occurrence of an undesirable stiction phenomenon in a conventional method
3
Appeal2014-010002
Application 13/598,962
according to Kim, as discussed by Ha (the evidentiary reference additionally
relied upon by the Examiner), is indicative of a lack of movement and
supports Appellants' viewpoint that Kim, as evidenced by Ha, teaches that
the thin film resonator 100 (component) is held within the cavity (space C of
Ha) without movement of the resonator/component within the cavity (Br. 5-
6; Ha, col. 1, 11. 44--46, col. 2, 11. 12-30; Figs. 1, 2G).
Representative claim 1 does not require any particular amount or
degree of free movement capability of the component in the cavity during
operation of the device as a functionality of the device, including the
component, made by the claim 1 method of forming the device so long as
some free movement capability during device operation is provided for.
Moreover, Appellants' argument does not directly address the teachings of
Kim with respect to forming the device such that the film
resonator/ component 100 is made so as to possess a floating
construction/functionality within the air gap/cavity for its function as a
resonator (Kim, col. 3, 11. 30-35, col. 6, 11. 33-37, col. 7, 11. 18-29, col. 11,
11. 57----62). While Ha refers to a decrease in yield due to an occurrence of a
stiction phenomenon during certain device manufacturing steps wherein a
drying step occurs after a washing step, Appellants have not articulated how
this disclosure of Ha compels the conclusion that the resonator of Kim
would not be capable of movement in the cavity during its device operation
(Ha, col. 2, 11. 18-30). Indeed, Appellants seemingly acknowledge that prior
art devices include a free (air) space so as to allow for movement of a
component (MEMS device) (Spec. i-f 3).
On this record, Appellants have not established that the Examiner
reversibly erred in determining that the combined applied prior art would
4
Appeal2014-010002
Application 13/598,962
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a method of forming a
device and the resonator/ component of Kim corresponding to the
requirements of representative claim 1 in a manner so as to provide the
floating resonator/component of Kim with the capability of freely moving at
least to some extent within the cavity during device operation so as to
provide for its intended functionality as a resonator (Ans. 3).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are insufficient to identify
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness holding respecting the first
and second stated rejections.
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims 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
5