Ex Parte Rauscher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13199079 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/199,079 08/17/2011
24972 7590 09/14/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lutz RAUSCHER
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.
1019116913 3898
EXAMINER
MCCARTY, TAUNYA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUTZ RAUSCHER
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision to reject claims 2, 4---6, and 8-13, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, and 7 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to
A microelectromechanical system microphone package has at
least one sensitive diaphragm provided in the front side of a
microphone component. The microphone component and a cap
wafer are connected to one another with their front sides facing
one another. The cap wafer functions as an intermediate wafer
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
for installing the microelectromechanical system microphone
package. The cap wafer is provided with feedthroughs so that
the microphone component is electrically contactable via the
cap wafer.
Abstract.
Claim 2 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
2. A microelectromechanical system microphone
package, comprising:
a microphone component having at least one
acoustically sensitive diaphragm provided in the front side
of the microphone component;
a cap wafer configured to protect the diaphragm;
and means for electrically contacting the microphone
component;
wherein i) the microphone component and the cap
wafer are connected to one another with front sides of the
microphone component and the cap wafer facing one
another, ii) the cap wafer functions as an intermediate
wafer for installing the microelectromechanical system
microphone packages, iii) the cap wafer is provided with
feedthroughs configured to enable the microphone
component to be electrically contacted via the cap wafer,
iv) sound to be detected by the diaphragm is introduced
via at least one sound opening in the back side of the
microphone component, and v) a recess in the cap wafer
forms the back-side volume for the diaphragm.
THE REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao (US 2008/0157238 Al; July 3, 2008) and Chen et
al. (US 2009/0129622; May 21, 2009) ("Chen"). Final Act. 7-10. 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed May
8, 2014 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 5, 2014 ("App. Br.");
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 17, 2015 ("Ans."); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed May 14, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
The Examiner rejected claims 4---6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao, Chen, and Minervini (US 7,166,910B2; Jan. 23,
2007). Final Act. 10-13.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao, Chen, Minervini, and Mittleman et al. (US
2009/0245564 Al; Oct. 1, 2009) ("Mittleman"). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao, Chen, Minervini, and Luo et al. (US 2005/0209392
Al; Sept. 22, 2005) ("Luo"). Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao, Chen, Minervini, Luo, and Lee et al. (US
2010/0052082 Al; Mar. 4, 2010) ("Lee"). Final Act. 16-17.
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsiao, Chen, Minervini, Luo, and Kamezos et al. (US
2006/0220209 Al; Oct. 5, 2006) ("Kamezos"). Final Act. 17-19.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON HSIAO AND CHEN
Claims 2 and 8
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2 and 8 as unpatentable over Hsiao and Chen.
Appellant contends that the Examiner interprets Chen's chip lower
surface 2202 as equivalent to the back side of the microphone component.
App. Br. 3. According to Appellant, under this interpretation the "front
side" of the Chen's microphone chip would be portion with the tag 60
(shown in reproduced annotated Fig. 4 below) and, thus, Chen would not
teach connecting the microphone component and the cap wafer to one
3
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
another with front sides of the microphone component and the cap wafer
facing one another. Id. Specifically, Appellant maintains that, under the
Examiner's interpretation, Chen's "back side of the microphone
component faces the cap wafer, which is directly contrary to the claimed
limitation that 'the microphone component and the cap wafer are connected
to one another with front sides of the microphone component and the cap
wafer facing one another."' App. Br. 3--4.
We disagree. The Examiner expressly identifies chip upper surface
2201 as the front side of the microphone component. One example is shown
in the Examiner's annotated Figure 4, reproduced below.
,-.y.•, .•. ,, ... ,, ............ ,,,,,, .. ~
1 ~~-:,,~;:;:::::;,,~-:-~:r:.t ~
I.~:~:~~~.~~~~~~.: .... J
:''YN•'•'•"'''' .......... '•'•"''''>Wo'-""'''~
~
j "'.'::::::._..;_'::{:,.:":'~?'.:: .• :_>:...~ ~
Flg.4
: {:~~::~:}-·:..)~~.~~~':'. 3
i ~:.:~.' :\:} ·~ ~i i
: 3
~ ~
;..,., ... .,, .. ·.··"''''"~·"'•'•'•"''""'""h•••"'''
The Examiner's Annotated Version of Chen's Figure 4 Noting that
Surface 2201 is the Front Side of the Microphone Component
Ans. 19. This finding is also consistent with the Examiner's reliance on the
holes 61 in tag 60 as the recited "at least one sound opening in the back side
of the microphone component." See Ans. 20-21. As depicted in Chen's
Figure 4, upper chip surface 2201 faces the front surface of cap wafer 30
4
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
and, thus, Chen teaches or suggests that the microphone component and the
cap wafer are connected to one another with front sides of the microphone
component and the cap wafer facing one another, as required by claim 2.
Appellant's next assert that Chen lacks the recited "sound to be
detected by the diaphragm is introduced via at least one sound opening in the
back side of the microphone component." App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2-3.
Namely, Appellant argues that Chen teaches of an acoustic wave injection
hole 302. According to Appellant, "it is inherent the sound injection takes
place through the 'acoustic wave injection hole 302' at the bottom of
substrate 30" and not through the holes 61 in the back side of the
microphone component. App. Br. 4.
While we agree that sound may be introduced to the device through
the acoustic wave injection hole 302, this does not preclude sound from also
being introduced through the holes 61. In fact, as the Examiner explains,
The principles of sound propagation or transmission are well
known. Having the tag 60 with through holes 61 located at or
near the back side of the microphone chip and having a sound, it
stand to reason that sound to be detected by the diaphragm would
enter by way of through holes 61 in the tag 60 which is located
at or near the back side of the microphone chip.
Ans. 20-21. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings.
Likewise unpersuasive is Appellant's argument that Chen lacks the
recited "recess in the cap wafer forms the back-side volume for the
diaphragm." See App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. As discussed above, we agree
with the Examiner that sound may be introduced to the diaphragm from
holes 61 in tag 60. In this instance then, the back side volume for the
diaphragm would be the recess in the cap wafer as shown in annotated figure
5
Appeal2015-005839
Application 13/199,079
4 above. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Chen teaches or suggests this disputed limitation.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 2, as well as claim 8 not argued with particularity, are unpatentable
over the combination of Hsiao and Chen.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 4-6 and 9-13
Appellant does not separately argue patentability for dependent claims
4---6 and 9-13 and, instead, rely on the arguments presented for claim 2. See
App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3--4. For the reasons discussed above, we find these
arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, claims 4---6 and 9-13 are
unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 4---6, and 8-13 under
§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 4---6, and 8-13.
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
6