Ex Parte Mangrum

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 7, 2011

11439684 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 7, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte BRETT A. MANGRUM
_____________

Appeal 2009-012088
Application 11/439,684
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012088
Application 11/439,684

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 14 through 20.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed a hinge assembly for a micromirror device.
See page 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 14 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
14. A method of forming an apparatus for use with a MEMS device,
comprising:
forming a first conductive layer disposed outwardly from a substrate,
the first conductive layer comprising a height;
forming a first hinge support and a second hinge support within the
first conductive layer, the first and second hinge supports each comprising a
height of approximately the height of the first conductive layer;
forming a spacer layer by disposing a spacer material outwardly from
the substrate and between the first and second hinge supports, the spacer
layer comprising a height of no more than the height of the first conductive
layer; and
forming a hinge layer disposed outwardly from at least a portion of
the first hinge support and at least a portion of the spacer layer, the hinge
layer comprising a hinge capable of at least partially supporting a
micromirror disposed outwardly from the hinge, wherein the hinge layer is
formed in a process step that is different than a process step that forms the
first hinge support.

REFERENCES
Patel US 2005/0260793 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
Payne US 7,064,883 B2 Jun. 20, 2006
Appeal 2009-012088
Application 11/439,684

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 through 18 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Patel. Answer 3-5.
1

The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Patel and Payne. Answer 5-6.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 10 and 11 of the Brief that Patel does not
teach forming a first and second hinge support within the first conductive
layer as recited in claim 14. Appellants reason that Patel’s hinge supports 18
are not in the conductive layer. Brief 10. Thus, Appellants’ arguments
present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that Patel teaches
the hinge supports within the conductive layer as recited in claim 14.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Patel teaches the hinge
supports are within the conductive layer. Appellants argue that layer 22 is a
conductive layer and that hinge supports 18 are not in this layer. Brief 11.
Further, Appellants’ argue that the hinge layer 20 being between conductive
layer 22 and hinge support layer 18 further shows that the support 18 is not
within conductive layer 22. Reply Brief 2.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 10, 2009.
Appeal 2009-012088
Application 11/439,684

4

The Examiner interprets the term “within” in claim 14 as “in or into
the interior or inner part or on, or as regard, the inside.” Answer 8. Based
upon this interpretation the Examiner finds that the support 18 is “within”
conductive layer 22. Answer 7 and 8. Appellants’ arguments have not
addressed the Examiner’s claim interpretation, and shown that Patel does not
teach the hinge support 18 is not within layer 22 using this definition. Nor
have Appellants shown that the Examiner’s definition is inconsistent with
the Specification. Rather, Appellants’ arguments imply that the claim
requires that the hinge support be made from the conductive layer. A feature
not recited in the independent claim 14. In the absence of a showing that the
Examiner’s claim interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification we
concur with the Examiner’s interpretation as a reasonable interpretation of
the term “within.” Given this interpretation we concur with the Examiner’s
finding that Patel teaches the hinge support within the conductive layers and
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14.
Appellants have not presented any separate arguments directed to the
dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 15 through 20
Appeal 2009-012088
Application 11/439,684

5

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14 through 20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD