Ex Parte Mutnury et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 4, 201512560133 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/560,133 09/15/2009 Bhyrav Mutnury XRPS920090090US1 9722 127893 7590 06/04/2015 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 13100 Wortham Center Drive Suite 245 Houston, TX 77065 EXAMINER WILLIS, TREMESHA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2847 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BHYRAV MUTNURY, JINWOO CHOI, MOISES CASES, and NANJU NA ____________ Appeal 2013-006821 Application 12/560,133 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s July 19, 2012, decision finally rejecting claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2013-006821 Application 12/560,133 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention is directed to a multi-layered ceramic package, which includes a signal layer having a plurality of signal lines and mesh reference layer parallel to the signal layer (Abstract). The mesh reference layer includes a plurality of intersecting reference lines of varying width in the plane of the mesh layer (id.). The mesh reference lines are aligned with the signal lines in the signal layer and widened in locations of probable signal cross-talk (id.). Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. We also reproduce claim 5, which is argued separately by Appellants: 1. A multi-layered ceramic package, comprising: a ceramic substrate; a signal layer having a plurality of signal lines in the ceramic substrate; and a mesh reference layer parallel to the signal layer, the mesh reference layer comprising a plurality of intersecting reference lines of varying reference-line width in the plane of the mesh reference layer, and the reference lines of varying reference-line width in the mesh reference layer are aligned with signal lines in the signal layer. 5. The multi-layered ceramic package of claim 1, wherein a widened portion of each reference line is aligned with one of the signal lines and the widened portion of each reference line is at least 10% wider than the aligned one of the reference lines. REJECTIONS Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haridass2 in view of Fuchida.3 Appellants argue all of the 2 Haridass et al., U.S. Patent Pub. 2008/0092101 A1, published April 17, 2008. 3 Fuchida et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,723,908, issued March 3, 1998. Appeal 2013-006821 Application 12/560,133 3 rejected claims together, and make one additional argument urging reversal of the rejection of claim 5 (Br. 12). Therefore, we will focus our analysis on the rejection of claim 1, but will also address the separate argument regarding claim 5. The Examiner finds that Haridass discloses each of the limitations of claim 1, except that “Haridass does not specifically disclose the reference lines having varying reference-line width” (Ans. 5). The Examiner further finds that Fuchida teaches reference lines having varying reference line widths, and determines that it would have been obvious to modify the reference lines of Haridass to have varying widths as taught by Fuchida in order to reduce noise/cross-talk between the signals lines in areas where noise/cross-talk may occur (Ans. 6). Appellants make two arguments in support of reversing the rejection of claim 1. First, Appellants argue that Fuchida teaches away from aligning the widened reference lines with the signal lines, and therefore is not properly combined with the teachings of Haridass, which does teach alignment of the signal and reference lines (Br. 10). Appellants correctly state that obviousness cannot be proven simply by showing that the elements of a claimed device were known in the prior art. Rather, obviousness may only be shown if a person of ordinary skill in the art had some “apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants implicitly concede that the combination of the teachings of Haridass and Fuchida as described by the Examiner would have resulted in the claimed invention (Br. 11). However, Appellants assert that because Fuchida Appeal 2013-006821 Application 12/560,133 4 teaches that the wider reference lines “intersect” with the signal lines, it teaches away from using wider reference lines in place of the aligned reference lines from Haridass (Br. 10–11). This argument is not persuasive. As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 9–10), the rejection of claim 1 does not rely upon Fuchida’s disclosure to teach the claimed alignment feature. Instead, Haridass teaches the alignment of the reference and signal lines (id.). The Examiner has provided a rationale for why it would have been obvious to have modified the aligned reference lines of Haridass varying their width in accordance with the teachings (Ans. 6, “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the reference lines of Haridass to have varying reference-line width as taught by Fuchida in order to optimize the reduction of noise or cross-talk between signal lines in areas where greater noise/cross-talk may occur.”). Appellants have not challenged this reasoning. Accordingly, we determine that Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Fuchida’s varied-width reference lines with Haridass’s aligned reference line/signal line arrangement. Second, Appellants assert that combining the teachings of Haridass and Fuchida is improper because the proposed combination of Haridass and Fuchida “would change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose” (Br. 11). Appellants provide no further explanation in support of this argument, which we find unpersuasive. Appellants have not provided credible evidence to show that modifying Haridass’s device to incorporate Fuchida’s varied- Appeal 2013-006821 Application 12/560,133 5 width reference lines would render Haridass’s device inoperable for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation. Finally, with respect to claim 5, Appellants make an argument that is similar to their argument regarding claim 1, namely that “the disparate teachings of Haridass and Fuchida with regard to the respective features are irreconcilable” and that the asserted combination does not support the claim limitation of “a widened portion of each reference line is aligned with one of the signal lines” (Br. 12, quoting Claim 5, emphasis added). However, as was the case with respect to claim 1, the Examiner has adequately explained why the proposed combination is appropriate, and Appellants have not persuasively refuted this explanation. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Haridass in view of Fuchida. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mat Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation