Ex Parte van Kampen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 9, 2016

12433027 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/433,027 0413012009 Robertus Petrus van Kampen
107817 7590 02/11/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Cavendish Kinetics
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
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.
1912.040031 (CK054) 8257
EXAMINER
KING, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2824
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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):
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
sversteeg@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERTUS PETRUS VAN KAMPEN 1
Appeal2014-004542
Application 12/433,027
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-5, 10, 12-15, and 20 as
unpatentable over Facey (WO 2007/066133 Al published June 14, 2007) in
view of Bertin et al. (US 2005/0062070 Al published Mar. 24, 2005
(hereinafter "Bertin")). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Cavendish Kinetics, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004542
Application 12/433,027
Appellant claims a non-volatile memory bitcell comprising a pull-up
electrode 304 coupled to a pull-up line PU, a pull-down electrode 306
coupled to a pull-down line PD, a contact electrode 308, and a cantilever
electrode 302 directly coupled to a bitline BL that is orthogonal to both the
pull-down line and the pull-up line (independent claim 1, Fig. 3; see also
independent memory array claim 13 and independent method claim 20).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A non-volatile memory bitcell, comprising:
a pull-up electrode coupled to a pull-up line;
a pull-down electrode coupled to a pull-down line;
a contact electrode disposed adjacent the pull-down
electrode; and
a cantilever electrode connected to a bi-stable cantilever
positioned between the pull-up electrode and the contact
electrode, the bi-stable cantilever movable between a position
in contact with the contact electrode and a position in contact
with the insulating material covering the pull-up electrode, the
cantilever electrode directly coupled to a bitline that is
orthogonal to both the pull-down line and the pull-up line.
Appellant's arguments are not specifically directed to any particular
claim (App. Br. 7-9). Therefore, the claims under rejection will stand or fall
with representative claim 1.
For the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness in the rejection of
representative claim 1, and the Appeal Brief fails to show harmful error in
this rejection. We therefore sustain the above rejection with the following
comments added for emphasis and completeness.
2
Appeal2014-004542
Application 12/433,027
The Examiner finds that "Facey fails to disclose that the cantilever
electrode is directly coupled to a bit line and instead shows a transistor
between the cantilever and the bit line" (Final Action 3). Concerning this
deficiency, the Examiner finds that "Bertin shows a transistor (T for
example) connected to a contact electrode (bottom electrode of 2120) rather
than the cantilever" (id.). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious "to connect the transistor to the contact
electrode of Facey rather than the cantilever since they are both equivalent
means of connecting the selection transistor in the series circuit[, wherein]
[t]he result would be the cantilever [of Facey] directly connected to the bit
line [as claimed]" (id.).
Appellant points out that the transistor of Facey prevents excessive
current from welding the cantilever electrode to the contact electrode and
argues that removing this transistor would allow such undesired welding
thereby rendering the memory cell of Facey unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose (App. Br. 7-9).
The Examiner responds to this argument as follows:
The Examiner has not proposed removal of the transistor from
the circuit, but has presented evidence (Bertin) showing a
different placement for said transistor within the series circuit.
Appellant has failed to present evidence supporting Appellant's
conclusion that rearranging the series circuit such that the
transistor, bit line, cantilever, and contact are in a different
order would yield a device that would be subject to the
"welding" discussed by Facey. Appellant has simply pointed to
the section of Facey which, as mentioned above, discusses prior
devices which have no transistor.
(Ans. 6.)
3
Appeal2014-004542
Application 12/433,027
Under these circumstances, Appellant's argument directed to removal
of Facey's transistor is not germane to the Examiner's rejection and
therefore does not reveal error in the rejection.
The Appeal Brief contains only one instance in which Appellant
expressly addresses the Examiner's proposed move of Facey's transistor.
Specifically, Appellant concedes that "[i]f the transistor 12 is moved to the
landing electrode side rather than the cantilever side, ... the transistor 12
would no longer be present between the cantilever and the bitline ... (hence,
the direct connection between the bitline ... and the cantilever)" (App. Br.
7). Nevertheless, Appellant argues that "doing so would defeat the teaching
of Facey because having the transistor 12 between the bitline ... and the
cantilever is the focus of the invention of Facey" (id.).
Appellant does not explain why moving the transistor as proposed by
the Examiner "would defeat the teaching of Facey" (id.) so as to militate
against the Examiner's conclusion that the proposed move would have been
obvious. In this regard, Appellant may be correct in stating that "having the
transistor 12 between the bitline ... and the cantilever is the focus of the
invention of Facey" (id.). However, this statement is little more than an
agreement with the Examiner's finding that the invention of Facey differs
from the invention of claim 1. By itself, the statement is insufficient to show
error in the conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Facey in
such a way that the resulting memory cell would be identical to the bitcell of
claim 1. For these reasons, we find no convincing merit in Appellant's only
argument in the Appeal Brief specifically directed to the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness regarding the proposed move of Facey' s
transistor.
4
Appeal2014-004542
Application 12/433,027
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the proposed move would
result in welding the cantilever to the contact electrode (or the pull-up
electrode) because the current through the cantilever would be uncontrolled
due to the way in which a transistor would operate if connected to Facey's
contact electrode as proposed (Reply Br. 2-3). These arguments could have
been but were not raised in the Appeal Brief. For this reason, and because
Appellant has not shown good cause for the untimeliness of the Reply Brief
arguments, these arguments will not be considered for purposes of the
present appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
In summary, we sustain the § 103 rejection of representative claim 1
and concomitantly remaining claims 2-5, 10, 12-15, and 20.
The decision of the Examiner 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).
AFFIRMED
5