Ex Parte Sutardja

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

14057231 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/057,231 10/18/2013
11280 7590 09/29/2016
Lee & Hayes , pllc
601 West Riverside Ave., Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Se hat Sutard ja
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.
MP3296Cl I
MV1-0015USC1
CONFIRMATION NO.
1612
EXAMINER
AHMAD, KHAJA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SEHAT SUTARDJA
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6-20. 1 We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Claim 5 is objected to by the Examiner as depending from a rejected base
claim.
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a semiconductor package
having a specified inductor arrangement for inductively coupling a first die
to a second die.
Claim 3 is illustrative and reproduced below:
3. A semiconductor package comprising:
a first die;
a second die; and
an inductor arrangement configured to inductively couple
the first die and the second die, while maintaining electrical
isolation between (i) active circuit components of the first die
and (ii) active circuit components of the second die,
wherein the inductor arrangement includes (i) a first
inductor circuit and (ii) a second inductor circuit,
wherein the first inductor circuit is configured to operate
as a primary coil of a transformer, and the second inductor circuit
is configured to operate as a secondary coil of the transformer,
wherein one or more active circuit components of the first
die is configured to transmit a first signal through the first
inductor circuit such that a second signal is inductively generated
in the second inductor circuit, and
wherein one or more active circuit components of the
second die is configured to receive the second signal from the
second inductor circuit.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Walton et al.
Hikosaka
Dupuis
Mahler
US 2004/0184398 Al
US 2007 /0035972 Al
US 2008/0013635 Al
US 2008/0173992 Al
2
Sept. 23, 2004
Feb. 15,2007
Jan. 17,2008
July 24, 2008
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
Appellant seeks review from the following grounds of rejection
maintained by the Examiner (App. Br. 4). 2
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Dupuis.
Claims 9-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dupuis.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Walton.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Hikosaka.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Mahler.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness adduced by
the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient
to identify reversible error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection and
obviousness rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the stated anticipation rejection and
obviousness rejections for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set
2 The Examiner maintained an obviousness-type double patenting rejection
of claims 3 and 15 over claims 1 and 11 of U. S. Patent No. 8,564,091 B2
(Sutardja) (Final Act. 3). However, Appellant subsequently filed a terminal
disclaimer on July 20, 2014, which disclaimer was subsequently approved
according to PTO records. Accordingly, we do not reach this rejection which
would appear to have been overcome. An official withdrawal of the latter
rejection by the Examiner appears to be missing from the record, which
omission should be clarified prior to final disposition of the Application.
3
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
forth by the Examiner in the Final Otlice Action, the advisory action3, and in
the Examiner's Answer, which we adopt. We offer the following for
emphasis.
Concerning the Examiner's anticipation rejection, Appellant presents
substantially the same arguments for claim 15 as presented for claim 3 and
does not argue the dependent claims separately. Accordingly, we select
claim 3 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this
appeal.
Appellant argues that Dupuis does not teach "one or more active
circuit components of the first die is configured to transmit a first signal
through the first conductor circuit such that a second signal is inductively
generated in the second inductor circuit" as required by representative claim
3 (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 3-5). In particular, Appellant seems to believe
that the signals S 1 and S3 as depicted in the annotated Figure 16 C of
Dupuis as presented in the Reply Brief must be the same signal for the
TX/RX 1612a of the die 1604 to have transmitted any signal through
inductor circuit lNl of Dupuis (Reply Br. 4--5). However, as further
recognized by Appellant, "the signal S 1, which is transmitted through the
inductor circuit IN 1, is generated based on the signal S3 being transmitted by
the TX/RX 1612a through the inductor circuit 1N3" (Reply Br. 5). In this
regard, Appellant does not specifically dispute the Examiner's finding that
"Dupuis teaches that an analog signal from the active circuit components
(TX/RX) of the first die (1604) is transmitted to the second die (1606) by
3 August 15, 2014
4
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
means of (through) circuits IN3, IN 1 and IN2([0108])" (Reply Br. 4, citing
Ans. 3).
Thus, Appellant has not demonstrated harmful error in the Examiner's
anticipation holding which is premised on Dupuis's circuit lNl being a
medium that corresponds to Appellant's first circuit given that circuit lNl
transmits a signal (S 1, which signal S 1 is generated based on signal S3 being
transmitted by the TX/RX 1612a through inductor circuit IN3) from a first
die 1604 to a second die 1606 and that circuit 1N2 of Dupuis, in which latter
circuit a second signal is inductively generated, corresponds to Appellant's
second inductor circuit as more fully set forth by the Examiner (Final Act.
6-7; Ans. 3-5).
In other words, Appellant has not established that circuit lNl
transmitting signal S 1 from a first die to a second die as described by Dupuis
does not correspond to the claim 3 argued limitation requiring "one or more
active circuit components of the first die is configured to transmit a first
signal [S 1] through the first conductor circuit [IN 1] such that a second signal
is inductively generated in the second inductor circuit [1N2]," as articulated
by the Examiner (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 6-7; claim 3).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection.
As for the separate obviousness rejections respecting certain
dependent claims, Appellant's additional arguments are principally based on
the arguments made with respect to the anticipation rejection, which we find
unpersuasive as indicated above (App. Br. 8-9).
For reasons set forth above and for the additional reasons advanced by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action and in the Answer, Appellant's
arguments made with respect to the separate obviousness rejections are
5
Appeal2015-003715
Application 14/057,231
unavailing for indicating harmful error in any of the obviousness rejections
pertaining to certain dependent claims (Final Act. 1 0-1 7; Ans. 6).
It follows that we shall sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims 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
6