Ex Parte Lobl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2013

10527115 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HANS LOBL, ROBERT MILSOM, CHRISTOF METZMACHER,
HANS-WOLFGANG BRAND, MAREIKE KLEE, and RAINER KIEWITT
____________

Appeal 2010-011683
Application 10/527,115
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011683
Application 10/527,115

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 7-10 and 15-24. Appeal Brief 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The present invention is directed to “bulk acoustic wave filters that
are constructed of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators which can be
connected in a ladder or in a lattice type configuration.” Specification 1.

Illustrative Claim
7. A bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator comprising:

a top electrode;

a piezoelectric layer disposed adjacent to the top
electrode;

a bottom electrode disposed adjacent to the piezoelectric
layer, wherein the bottom electrode is disposed opposite the top
electrode relative to the piezoelectric layer; and

a substrate disposed opposite the piezoelectric layer
relative to the bottom electrode, wherein the substrate
comprises an uneven surface to suppress a spurious mode,
wherein the uneven surface is on a rear side of the substrate
facing away from the bottom electrode.

Appeal 2010-011683
Application 10/527,115

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being
anticipated by Nishihara (U.S. Patent Number 6,734,763 B2; issued May 11,
2004). Answer 3-4.
Claims 7, 8, and 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nishihara. Answer 4-8.
Claims 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishihara and Korbin (U.S. Patent Number 5,936,150;
issued August 10, 1999). Answer 8-9.

Issue on Appeal
Does Nishihara disclose a resonator wherein the substrate comprises
an uneven surface on the rear side in reference to the bottom electrode
adjacent a piezoelectric layer as claimed?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue:
First, the suggestion that it would have been obvious to
modify Nishihara to include an uneven surface “in order to
Appeal 2010-011683
Application 10/527,115

4
form the device as understood by Nishihara et al.” is
unclear and further gives no rational underpinning to
support the asserted conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants submit that if the device of Nishihara were
modified, the reason to modify the device cannot come
from the description of the Nishihara itself, because the
device described in Nishihara is not modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner.

Appeal Brief 9.
Appellants also argue, “Second, the Examiner does not provide
reasoning to show how an uneven surface on the side of the substrate that
faces away from the bottom electrode would improve adhesion between the
substrate and the device structure. Nishihara does not teach adhesion
between the substrate and the device structure.” Id.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner did not
provide rational underpinning to support his assertion of obviousness
(Appeal Brief 8) because we find that the Examiner’s reasoning that it would
have been obvious to modify Nishihara by utilizing a substrate wherein the
rear side of the substrate has an uneven surface in order to improve adhesion
between the substrate and the overall device structure is sufficient enough to
support his assertion of obviousness. See Answer 5.
The limitation in claim 7 “wherein the substrate comprises an uneven
surface” does not quantify the vertical deviations of the surface of the
substrate nor does it require a roughening of the surface. Claim 7 only
requires an uneven surface. Hence Nishihara’s substrate could be single side
polished as opposed to double side polished wherein both methods are
notoriously well known in the art of wafer/substrate preparation. In a single
side polishing procedure, one surface would be polished to prep for
Appeal 2010-011683
Application 10/527,115

5
fabrication, while the rear side would be left unpolished to improve adhesion
to either the structure or back-side metallization. Appellants’ argument that
Nishihara’s disclosed direct bonding or anodic bonding would suffer with a
rough surface area is not persuasive because single side polishing would not
require reducing the amount of contact area of the substrate as Appellants
contends. Appeal Brief 9.
Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 7, as well as, independent claim 20, commensurate in
scope and those claims dependent therefrom, not separately argued claims 8,
16-19 and 21-24. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 9, 10 and 15, not separately argued for the same reasons as stated
above.
Having reached a decision on the merits in regard to all of the claims,
we will not address the merits of the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 8,
and 16 by Nishihara.

DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 7-10 and 15-24 are 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw