Ex Parte Saxena

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2019

15099007 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/099,007 04/14/2016
10800 7590 03/08/2019
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kuldeep Saxena
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.
1576-1950 5125
EXAMINER
TRAN,DZUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2019 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 KULDEEP SAXENA
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11 and 24--35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of April 14, 2016
as amended on June 12, 2017 (Spec.), Final Office Action of June 20, 2017
(Final), Appeal Brief of November 20, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's
Answer of January 31, 2018 (Ans.), and Reply Brief of March 28, 2018
(Reply Br.).
2 Appellants Akustica, Inc. and Robert Bosch GmbH are the applicants
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and identified real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
as obvious over Leidl 3 in view of Butt. 4 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The claims are directed to a microelectromechanical system (MEMS)
device package. See, e.g., claims 1, 3, and 35. Each of the claims on appeal
requires a corrugated structure somewhere on the package. Id. This
corrugated structure may be on an inner region or outer region of a cover
(see, e.g., claim 1), on the outer wall of the cover's outer region (see, e.g.,
claim 3), or on a side wall of the cover's inner region (see, e.g., claim 35).
An embodiment having a corrugated structure on the inner region of
the cover is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 depicts a cover 212 with a
corrugated structure 218 on side walls 2I4a-214d as well as on the upper
wall 214e of inner region 214. Spec. ,r 14.
An embodiment having a corrugated structure as required by claim 3
is shown in Figure 5F. Figure 5F depicts a corrugated structure 218' on the
outer wall of the cover's outer region 216. Spec. ,r 20.
Claim 1 further requires an acoustic port. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Claim 1. A microelectromechanical system (MEMS)
device package comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and second surface;
a cover having an inner region and an outer region, the
cover is coupled to the substrate and defines a cavity between
the inner region and the substrate;
at least one device disposed within the cavity; and
3 Leidl et al., US 2008/0247585 Al, published October 9, 2008 ("Leidl").
4 Butt et al., US 4,769,345, issued September 6, 1988 ("Butt").
2
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
an acoustic port defined in one of the substrate and the
cover and connecting the cavity to an external environment,
wherein a corrugated structure is formed on at least one
of the inner region and the outer region.
Appeal Br. 18 (claims appendix). Claims 3 and 35 do not require an
acoustic port.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on the combination of Leidl and Butt to reject all
the claims. Final 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to
clearly articulate the reasons for which it would have been obvious to
modify Leidl with the teachings of Butt. Appeal Br. 5.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 3, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred. Because Butt alone is
sufficient to render claim 35 obvious, Appellants have not shown reversible
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 35. Our reasons for so holding
follow.
Claim 1
Turning first to claim 1, which requires both an acoustic port and a
corrugated structure formed on at least one of the inner and the outer region,
we agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding a
reason to include a corrugated structure in the cover of Leidl.
Leidl teaches an electrical module with a built-in MEMS microphone.
Leidl ,r 5. The Examiner relies on the embodiment shown in Figure 2A.
Final 3. As found by the Examiner, the module of Figure 2A includes a
cover (CAP) having an acoustic port (IN), but neither the inner region nor
3
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
outer region of the cover (CAP) include a corrugated structure. Final 3,
Leidl Fig. 2A. Thus, the Examiner turns to Butt.
Butt teaches increasing the surface area of a cover including a
gettering alloy by milling the cover material to form a grooved surface as
shown in Figure 2. Butt col. 8, 1. 64---col. 9, 1. 11. The effect is to increase
the surface area available for the gettering reaction between the alloy and
oxygen and water vapor in a package atmosphere. Id. According to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
before the time of the invention to provide at least one of the inner or outer
regions of Leidl' s cover with a corrugated structure "in order to increase the
surface available for the oxidation reaction." Final 3, citing Butt col. 9, 11.
9-10.
The Examiner's finding of a reason to combine is faulty because there
is little persuasive evidence to support a need for increasing the surface
available of oxidation in Leidl' s structure. Butt is directed to a method of
fabricating a hermetically sealed semiconductor package. Butt col. 1, 11. 55-
65. The package includes a base and a lid bonded together by a sealing
glass. Butt col. 4, 11. 34--40. The lid contains a gettering alloy. Id. When
heating to melt the glass to hermetically seal the lid to the base, the gettering
alloy consumes oxygen and water vapor. Butt col. 5, 11. 11-26. In the words
of Butt, "upon initial heating, a base alloy oxidation film is formed and as
the temperature begins to rise, a refractory oxide film is formed under the
base alloy oxidation film, yielding a duplex alloy film upon the alloy." Butt
col. 5, 11. 64---67. As found by the Examiner, Butt describes a corrugated
structure. However, Leidl neither describes forming a package by a heating
method nor does Leidl provide an indication that a gettering alloy would
4
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
adequately function in the open cavity of Leidl. The Examiner has not
provided adequate evidence or technical reasoning to support a finding that
increasing oxidation by a gettering alloy would be of use in Leidl' s cover.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or the
rejection of the claims that depend from claim 1.
Claim 3
Turning to claim 3, this claim requires an outer region comprising an
outer wall including a corrugated structure. The Examiner recognizes that
Leidl does not teach a corrugated structure on an outer wall of Leidl' s cover
(CAP). Final 4. The Examiner finds that Butt teaches the required
corrugated structure and, again, concludes it would have been obvious to
have included the corrugated structure of Butt in the cover of Leidl to
increase the surface available for oxidation. Id.
A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's
finding. Butt's corrugated structure is on the inner region, not the outer
region, of the cover. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 3 or the rejection of the claims that depend from claim 3.
Claim 35
Turning to claim 35, we determine that Butt alone provides a
preponderance of evidence supporting the Examiner's rejection. Butt
discloses increasing the surface available for oxidation by forming grooves
in the inner region of a cover. Butt col. 8, 1. 64---col. 9, 1. 11. Although
Butt's Figure 2 does not show grooved sidewalls, the disclosure suggests
providing all surfaces exposed to the gas constituents with a larger effective
surface area to increase oxidation and this suggests providing grooves in all
5
Appeal2018-004709
Application 15/099,007
available surfaces including the sidewalls. Id. Given that a preponderance
of the evidence supports the Examiner's rejection of claim 35, we sustain
that rejection.
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11 and 24--34, but we
sustain the rejection of claim 35.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6