Ex Parte Okamoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2018

13639119 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/639,119 10/03/2012
127615 7590 05/04/2018
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
Skyworks Filter Solutions Japan Co., LTD.
ONE MAIN STREET, SUITE 100
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shoji Okamoto
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.
S2199-7010US 2038
EXAMINER
ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2018 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):
DOCKETING@LALA W.COM
CKent@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOJI OKAMOTO, REI GOTO, HIDEKAZU NAKANISHI,
and HIROYUKI NAKAMURA
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicants (hereinafter "Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1-27.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. Because we detect no reversible error in the Examiner's
rejections based on the Appellants' arguments in this appeal, we adopt the
1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Skyworks Panasonic
Filter Solutions Japan Co., LTD." (Appeal Brief filed June 14, 2016,
hereinafter "Br.," 3).
2 Br. 8-13; Final Office Action entered November 19, 2015, hereinafter
"Final Act.," 2-16; Examiner's Answer entered October 3, 2016, hereinafter
"Ans.," 2-3.
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
Examiner's findings and reasoning as our own and add the following for
emphasis.
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to an acoustic wave device
including a specified IDT (interdigital transducer) electrode (Specification
filed October 3, 2012, hereinafter "Spec.," 1, 1. 6; 2, 1. 3-6; 7, 1. 8-9).
According to the Appellants, the device "is capable of reducing insertion
loss, and is applicable to electronic devices, such as mobile phones" (id. at
58, 11. 15-17).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Br. 14), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
1. An acoustic wave device comprising:
a piezoelectric body;
an IDT electrode disposed above the piezoelectric body,
the IDT electrode exciting a main acoustic wave having a
wavelength A, the IDT electrode including a first electrode layer
mainly made of molybdenum disposed above the piezoelectric
body and a second electrode layer mainly made of aluminum
disposed above the first electrode layer, the IDT electrode
having a total thickness not more than 0.15)., the first electrode
layer having a thickness not less than 0. 05J..., the second
electrode layer having a thickness not less than 0.025J...;
a silicon oxide film disposed above the piezoelectric body
and covering the IDT electrode, the silicon oxide film having a
thickness between 0.2A and IA., the thickness of the first electrode
layer selected based on the thickness of the silicon oxide film;
and
a dielectric film having a thickness between l"A, and 5A.
disposed above the silicon oxide film, the dielectric film
including a medium allowing a transverse wave to propagate
through the medium faster than the transverse wave propagates
through the silicon oxide film.
2
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains two rejections under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
A. Claims 1-13, 16, 19, and 21-27 as unpatentable over Yamane
et al. 3 (hereinafter "Yamane") and Kimura et al. 4 (hereinafter
"Kimura"); and
B. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over Yamane,
Kimura, and Seki et al. 5 (hereinafter "Seki").
(Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 2-16.)
III. DISCUSSION
Rejection A. The Appellants argue claims 1-13, 16, 19, and 21-27
together (Br. 8-13). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which
we select as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). As
provided by this rule, claims 2-13, 16, 19, and 21-27 stand or fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Yamane describes an acoustic wave device
having most of the limitations recited in claim 1, including an IDT electrode,
but acknowledges that the reference does not disclose the specific IDT
3 WO 2009/133655 Al, published November 5, 2009. The Examiner relies
on the corresponding United States Published Application, US
2011/0037344 Al, published February 17, 2011, as a translation (Final Act.
2). Therefore, we also rely on the US document.
4 WO 2010/070816 Al, published June 24, 2010. The Examiner relies on
the corresponding United States Published Application, US 2011/0241481
Al, published October 6, 2011, as a translation (Final Act. 2). Therefore, we
also rely on the US document.
5 WO 2010/122767 Al, published October 28, 2010. The Examiner relies
on the corresponding United States Published Application, US
2012/0019102 Al, January 26, 2012, as a translation (Final Act. 13).
3
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
electrode recited in the claim (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds further,
however, that Kimura teaches an IDT electrode, which satisfies the
limitations missing in Yamane, as providing an improvement in terms of
electromechanical coupling coefficient to an acoustic wave device (Final
Act. 3; Ans. 2-3). The Examiner concludes from these findings that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Yamane and
Kimura in the manner claimed by the Appellants (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2-3).
The Appellants' principal argument is that no prima facie case of
obviousness exists because "the Examiner takes portions of each of Yamane
and Kimura out of context and ignores portions of the references that would
have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from making the asserted
combination" (Br. 8). Specifically, the Appellants point out that Yamane
requires its IDT electrode to satisfy an inequality defined as (h/A.)xa:::;0.05,
where h is the thickness of the interdigital electrode, A is the period of
electrode fingers of the interdigital electrode, and a is the ratio of the density
of a metal of the interdigital electrode to the density of Au, but Kimura's
IDT electrodes would have inequality values above the upper limit of 0.05
required by Yamane (id. at 8-11).
The Appellants' argument fails to identify any reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 2), Yamane's teaching regarding the
inequality being less than or equal to 0.05 is disclosed in the context of a
preferred embodiment-not an absolute requirement (Yamane i-f 10 ("A
preferred embodiment of the present invention .... ")). Furthermore,
according to the Appellants' own calculations (Br. 11 ), when molybdenum
is selected as the first electrode layer as in Kimura (Kimura i-f 59), the
4
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
resulting IDT electrode would have an inequality between 0.0529 and
0.0598-values that are very close to Yamane's 0.05 as disclosed in its
preferred embodiment. In view of the closeness of such values, a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Kimura's
IDT electrode based on molybdenum as the first electrode layer and
aluminum as a second electrode layer (id. i-fi-159, 65), when implemented in
Yamane, would provide beneficial results in terms of electromechanical
coupling coefficient as taught by Kimura (id. i1 45). Under these
circumstances, we discern no merit in the Appellants' position that a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have been dissuaded from combining
Kimura with Yamane. In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
("Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have
resulted in an 'inoperable' process.").
For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we uphold
Rejection A.
Rejection B. The Appellants rely on the same arguments offered for
Rejection A, adding only that Seki does not cure the alleged deficiencies in
the Examiner's combination of Yamane and Kimura (Br. 13). Because the
Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings of Yamane and Kimura is
not deficient, we uphold Rejection B for the same reasons discussed above.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A and Bare sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final
decision to reject claims 1-27 is affirmed.
5
Appeal2017-007067
Application 13/639,119
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
6