Ex Parte Wachtmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 2008

10670673 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRUCE K. WACHTMANN
____________

Appeal 2008-1033
Application 10/670,673
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 17, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

ORDER REMANDED TO THE EXAMINER

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and
15-19. Claims 9-14, and 20 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method of forming a surface micromachined MEMS device, the
method comprising:

providing a substrate;
Appeal 2008-1033
Application 10/670,673

applying an oxide on the substrate;

depositing a conductive path directly on the oxide, the conductive
path being capable of transmitting an electronic signal between two points
on the MEMS device, the oxide spacing the conductive path from the
substrate, the MEMS device being free of semiconductor junctions formed
by the substrate and the conductive path,

forming circuitry and structure, the circuitry and structure being the
two points; and

connecting the conductive path between the circuitry and the
structure.

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of forming a
surface micromachined MEMS device. The process includes depositing a
conductive path directly on an oxide layer. A dispositive issue on appeal is
the obviousness of replacing the nitride layer of Montague with Appellant's
oxide layer based on the teachings of Kim and Lee. According to the
Examiner, Kim and Lee establish the equivalency of an oxide and a nitride
as an etch/polish stop layer.
In response to the Examiner's Answer, Appellant presents a Reply
Brief setting forth an argument that was not made in the Principal Brief.
Appellant contends that "substitution of Kim's or Lee's oxide layer for
Montague's nitride layer will cause Montague's device not to function
properly as a MEMS device" (Reply Br. 3, first para.). Appellant contends
that "[i]f Montague's silicon nitride insulating layer (22 in figs. 11 and 12)
device is replaced by an oxide layer as taught by Kim or Lee, the etchant
material used to dissolve sacrificial layer 30, 32 will also dissolve the oxide
in insulating layer 22" (Reply Br. 5, first para.). Appellant submits that
2
Appeal 2008-1033
Application 10/670,673

"[d]issolution of insulating layer 22 yields a non-functional MEMS device
because this layer 22 will debond from the substrate 14 allowing the
conductive layer 24 to short with this substrate" (id.).
The Examiner, in a communication dated September 5, 2007, stated
that the Reply Brief was entered and considered. However, the Examiner's
response to Appellant's new argument in the Reply Brief is not of record.
Accordingly, the application is remanded to the Examiner to provide
the opportunity to respond to the arguments set forth in Appellant's Reply
Brief. The Examiner should also consider the obviousness of selecting an
etchant that does not dissolve the oxide layer that would replace Montague's
nitride layer, or selecting different materials for sacrificial layers 30 and 32
that may be removed by an etchant that does not dissolve the substituted
oxide layer.
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
is made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(2) applies if a Supplemental Examiner's Answer is written in
response to this Remand to the Board.
REMAND

cam

BROMBERG & SUNSTEIN, LLP
125 SUMMER STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110-1618
3