Ex Parte Ou-Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

11769711 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111769,711 06/28/2007 Cheng-Yi Ou-Yang
27765 7590 08/31/2016
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
P.O. BOX506
MERRIFIELD, VA 22116
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.
MTKP055 l USA 5298
EXAMINER
DINH,TUANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG-YI OU-YANG 1
Appeal2015-001141
Application 11/769,711
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 29 in the above-identified application. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to "a circuit structure having
independent ground plane layouts implemented in a circuit board for
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is MediaTek Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-001141
Application 11/769,711
respective circuit components." Spec. 1. Claim 1, the sole pending
independent claim, is representative:
1. A circuit structure, comprising:
a first circuit board, comprising:
a first ground plane layout, comprising at least one
ground plane; and
a second ground plane layout, comprising at least one
ground plane, wherein the first ground plane
layout is not electrically connected to the second
ground plane layout within the first circuit board,
wherein the first circuit board has no ground plane
overlapped with the first ground plane layout in a
thickness direction of the first circuit board.
Am. Claims App. 3, May 8, 2014 (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1-3 and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 6,885,561 Bl
(issued Apr. 26, 2005) [hereinafter Hashemi]. Final Action 2-3.
II. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hashemi in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,608,589 Bl
(issued Aug. 19, 2003) [Devereux]. Final Action 3--4.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant cites only the rejection of independent
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as an issue for appeal, and only presents
arguments relating to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3-8. Therefore, consistent
with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our
discussion to claim 1, and all other claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
2
Appeal2015-001141
Application 11/769,711
DISCUSSION
Figures 1 and 6 of Hashemi are reproduced below:
FIG.1
r 600
610b
FIG.6
3
630
Appeal2015-001141
Application 11/769,711
Figure 1 depicts an exploded perspective view of a multiple chip module
(MCM). Hashemi 2:51. Figure 6 depicts a schematic cross-sectional view
of an MCM embodiment. Id. at 2:61---62.
The Examiner finds that Hashemi teaches all the limitations of claim
1. See Final Action 2-3. Specifically referring to Hashemi Figs. 1 and 6,
the Examiner finds that "the first ground plane layout (122 or 610a) is not
electrically ... connected to the second ground plane (124 or 610b)," and
that "the first circuit board (102) has no ground plane overlapped with the
first ground plane layout in a thickness direction of the first circuit board."
Id.
Regarding Hashemi Fig. 1, Appellant argues that "ground planes 122
and 124 are formed upon the same internal metal layer and are therefore
electrically connected to one another." Appeal Br. 4 (citing Hashemi Fig. 1,
7 :22-25). Appellant also argues that "Hashemi never discloses or implies
that the ground planes 122 and 124 disposed on top of the substrate 102 do
not overlap any other ground plane," and argues that in one configuration,
there are electrical connections between the ground planes 122 and 124,
their respective die attach pads 112, and the motherboard, which would
result in overlapping ground planes. See Appeal Br. 5 (citing Hashemi
7:25-31).
Regarding Hashemi Fig. 6, Appellant argues that "[i]t cannot be
proven from the disclosure of Hashemi that the conductive pads 61 Oa and
610b are not electrically connected to one another," and "since the die attach
pad 604 is electrically connected to conductive pads 61 Oa and 61 Ob, the die
attach pad 604 can be viewed as a ground plane as well. This means that the
die attach pad 604 overlaps with the conductive pads 610a and 610b." Id. at
6. In the Reply Brief, however, Appellant stated that "Appellant agrees with
4
Appeal2015-001141
Application 11/769,711
the Examiner that when the vias (606) are merely thermal vias, the two
ground planes (610a, 610b) are not electrically connected." Reply Br. 3
(citing Answer 3).
In light of Appellant's agreement with the Examiner that Hashemi
teaches an embodiment in which there is no electrical connection between
ground planes 61 Oa and 61 Ob, and there is no electrical connection to die
attach pad 604, the arguments in Appellant's Appeal Brief are not persuasive
of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For the reasons
discussed above, we also find no reversible error in the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2---6 and 29.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant sets forth a new argument regarding
claim 3. See Reply Br. 3--4. This argument could have been, but was not,
presented in the Appeal Brief. Appellant has not shown good cause why this
new argument should be considered; therefore, consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b )(2) (2013), we do not consider this argument in our disposition of
this appeal. Thus, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Hashemi teaches all the limitations of claim 3. See Final
Action 3.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5