Lantiq Deutschland GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

14534311 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/534,311 11/06/2014 Bernhard Tschuden KRAUP240US 1070
18052 7590 05/01/2020
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
ALKASSIM JR, AB SALAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BERNHARD TSCHUDEN and ARNOLD MARAK

Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel IP
Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to radio frequency coils formed on
semiconductor chips (Spec. 1:7–9; Claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate,
a coil formed on the semiconductor substrate, and
a metal filling within the coil, the coil being a radio-frequency coil of
at least one of a radio-frequency transmitting, receiving or transceiver device
wherein the metal filling comprises a metal filling in a metallized
region in each of a plurality of metal layers, and
wherein the metallized region of one of the plurality of metal layers is
arranged laterally offset in relation to metallized regions of the others of the
plurality of metal layers.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 7–10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Marques (US 7,262,481 B1; Aug. 28, 2007) in
view of Rofougaran (US 2009/0218407 A1; Sept. 3, 2009) and
Chen (US 8,159,044 B1; Apr. 17, 2012).

2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Marques in view of Rofougaran, Chen and
Uchida (US 7,932,578 B2; Apr. 26, 2011).
With regard to rejection (1), Appellant’s arguments focus on claim 1
only (Appeal Br. 3–8). Any claims not argued separately will stand or
fall with claim 1.
Regarding rejection (2), Appellant’s argument focuses on claim 2 only
(Appeal Br. 9–10). Any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with
claim 2 in rejection (2).
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

3
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the § 103
rejection of claim 1 over Marques, Rofougaran, and Chen are located on
pages 3 to 5 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that Marques teaches
the subject matter of claim 1, except for the coil being a radio frequency coil
and the limitation that the metallized region of one of the plurality of metal
layers is arranged laterally offset in relation to metallized regions of the
others of the plurality of metal layers (Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner finds
that Rofougaran teaches using a coil on a semiconductor chip being a radio-
frequency coil and concludes that it would have been obvious to have
Marques’ coil be a radio-frequency coil that enables communication of data
within the frequency range (Final Act. 4). Appellant does not dispute this
finding or conclusion regarding the combination of Marques and Rofougaran
(Appeal Br. generally). The Examiner finds that Chen teaches a metallized
region of one of a plurality of layers that are arranged laterally offset in
relation to metallized regions of the others of the plurality of metal layers
(Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
implement a transition zone 48 as taught by Chen in Marques’ device where
the metallized regions of others of the plurality of layers are arranged
laterally offset in relation to the metallized regions of the others of the
plurality of metal layers as taught by Chen to smooth the otherwise rapid
change in metal density between the low and high density regions, to prevent
differences in metal density which may adversely affect components on the
integrated circuit, and provide an uniform distribution of metal and dielectric
materials within a transition zone (Final Act. 5).
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

4
Appellant argues that there is no reason to use Chen’s metal-filled
transition region with Marques’ device because Marques already uses a
smooth transition in metal-fill pattern density (Appeal Br. 3–7). Appellant
contends that Chen teaches that the transition region 48 is used to smooth the
otherwise rapid change in metal density between the low density spiral
conductor region 38 and high density active region 63 (Appeal Br. 5).
Appellant argues that the transition zone in Chen and the fill structure
pattern 410 in Marques are used for two different purposes such that there is
no reason for the combination (Reply Br. 6). Appellant argues that using
Chen’s transition region in Marques device would have frustrated the
specific purpose of Marques to reduce the effective series resistance of the
inductor based on the varying fill density of the fill structure pattern 410
(Appeal Br. 7).
Marques teaches that in one embodiment the density of the metal fill
may vary from low density at or near the inductor coil to higher density at
areas of low magnetic field (i.e., near the center of the area enclosed by the
coil) (col. 6, ll. 33–44). Marques does not disclose that the transition from
the lower density region to a higher density region is smooth as argued by
Appellant (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant recognizes that Marques does not teach
a smooth transition in metal fill density (Reply Br. 6). Rather, Marques
discloses that the fill density varies and may be increased as a function of the
distance from the conductive loop 105 in Figure 4 (col. 6, ll. 15–44).
Marques also teaches an alternative embodiment where the conductive
structures may be distributed uniformly wherever the pattern is formed (col.
6, ll. 47–49). Marques discloses in Figure 4 an embodiment where the coil
is shaped like an octagon.
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

5
Chen discloses that certain inductor coil loops and transition zone
geometries may present a problem with providing a uniform distribution of
metal and dielectric materials within the transition zone (col. 1, ll. 49–51).
Chen discloses that transition zones with angles greater than 90°, such as
135° angles, have exhibited non-uniformities in their dummy metal patterns
(col. 1, ll. 51–55). Chen’s transition zones are disclosed as having a uniform
density even for transition zone geometries with non-perpendicular angles
along zone boundaries (e.g., octagonal structures) (col. 1, ll. 59–61; Figures
2, 6). Chen teaches that in the transition zone the densities of the metal and
dielectric material in the metal layers 24, the patterns of the polysilicon and
dielectric material in the polysilicon layer 22 and the shallow trench
isolation structures in the substrate 20 are configured to provide a smooth
transition between the active region 63 (having a higher metal density) and
the inductor (having a lower metal density) (col. 4, ll. 53–60; col. 5, ll. 37–
50).
Based on these findings, we agree with the Examiner that the
combined teachings of Chen and Marques would have suggested using
Chen’s transition region for inductor coil loops that do not have
perpendicular angles. Marques’ octagonal inductor coil would have
benefited from using Chen’s transition region 48 for the octagonal inductor
loop. As the Examiner finds, Chen teaches that the transition region 48
provides a smooth transition from lower density areas to higher density areas
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 4). Although Marques provides a variation in metal
density from a lower density near high magnetic field areas to a higher
density near lower magnetic field areas, Marques does not disclose that the
transition is necessarily smooth or uniform. Marques’ device would have
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

6
benefited from Chen’s transition zone for inductor coils that have non-
perpendicular angles that provides a uniform distribution of metal and
dielectric material within the transition zone. Although Appellant argues
that the Chen’s and Marques’ purposes differ, Chen plainly teaches that the
density in the transition region varies from a high metal density active region
63 to a lower metal density inductor coil region 38 (col. 4, ll. 53–60; col. 5,
ll. 37–50; Reply Br. 6). Based on Marques’ teaching that the metal fill
density varies from a lower density at high magnetic field region (i.e., near
the inductor coil) to areas of high metal density near lower magnetic regions
(i.e., areas farther away from the coil), Chen’s teachings to configure the
metal fill density of the transition region to provide a smooth transition
between a high metal fill density area and lower metal fill density area
would have benefited Marques’ transition from an area of lower metal fill
density to an area of higher metal fill density.
Appellant has not shown or explained how using Chen’s teaching
would have frustrated Marques’ purpose of reducing the effective series
resistance of the inductor based on varying fill density of the fill structure
pattern (Appeal Br. 7). Indeed Marques teaches that the metal fill structures
can be situated so that there is larger spacing closer to the inductor coil (i.e.,
in a higher magnetic field area) and closer together (i.e., a higher density)
farther away from the inductor coil (i.e., in a lower magnetic field) (col. 6, ll.
33–44). Chen’s transition region tailored for inductors and zone boundaries
having non-perpendicular angles would have been positioned between the
lower and higher density regions of Marques. Appellant has not shown that
providing such an arrangement would have frustrated the purpose of
Marques’ device.
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

7
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reason for the proposed
modification of Marques with Chen’s teachings is misplaced because the
Examiner relies on Marques’ reference number 415 as showing a high
density region and reference number 410 as showing a low density region
(Appeal Br. 8). Appellant contends that Marques’ region referenced by 415
is an area outside the inductor loop and 410 is an area inside of the inductor
loop 205 (Appeal Br. 8). Appellant argues no motivation to modify
Marques to place a transition zone between a region 415 outside of the coil
and a region 410 within the coil because such a modification would have
served no useful purpose (Appeal Br. 8).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner admits
that the reliance on these reference numbers was a mistake (Ans. 4).
However, we agree with the Examiner that that harmless mistake does not
change the thrust of the obviousness rejection as being drawn to a providing
Chen’s transition zone between Marques’ a low density region and a high
density region (Ans. 4). For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 7–10 and 12 over Marques in view
of Chen.

Rejection (2): Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “a density in each of the
plurality of metal layers being less than 20%.”
The Examiner finds that Marques teaches that the density in each of
the plurality of metal layers is less than 20% at column 7, lines 4 to 38 (Final
Act. 8). The Examiner finds that Chen teaches altering the metal density to
a desired amount at column 5, lines 37 to 67 and column 12, lines 4 to 14
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

8
(Final Act. 8). The Examiner finds that Uchida teaches a density of the
plurality of layers being less than 20% (Final Act. 8). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to have a density in each of the
plurality of metal layers of the combination of Marques, Rofougaran, Chen
and Uchida to be less than 20% to achieve the necessary metal density in the
layers according to the layout information of the conductive pattern required
for the circuit configuration to operate the antenna within a desired
frequency (Final Act. 8). The Examiner further finds that the metal densities
in the layers would have been readily optimizable citing In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). (Final Act. 8).
Appellant argues that since Chen teaches that the inductor region has
a metal density of 20%, the transition region to a higher metal density region
must include densities that are greater than 20% (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant
contends that to the extent that the metal density may be altered within the
intermediate density region, the metal densities cannot be below 20%
because, according to Chen’s teachings, the inductor region has a 20% metal
density (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant argues that Uchida and Marques do not
disclose altering the metal density to be less than 20% (Appeal Br. 9).
Regarding the Examiner’s optimization rationale based on Aller,
Appellant contends that the teaching of the references would have led to
optimizing the layers so that the metal densities are greater than 20%
because the inductor layer has a metal density of 20% (Appeal Br.10).
Appellant contends that the transition from the inductor to a higher density
layer would require the metal densities to be greater than 20% (Appeal Br.
10).
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

9
The Examiner correctly finds that the Chen teaches that the inductor
layer “may have, for example, 20% metal.” (emphasis added) (Ans. 5; Chen,
col. 5, ll. 39–41). In other words, Chen’s teaching is not limited to having
20% metal in the inductor layer as argued by Appellant. Chen further
teaches that the metal density in the active component regions may vary
from region to region on an integrated circuit and may depend on the type of
components that are formed in a specific region (col. 5, ll. 45–48). 2 Based
on Chen’s teaching, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the metal
densities used in the various levels are readily optimizable to desired metal
densities for a particular type of component or circuit. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments that require the metal densities in the metal fill layers
to be greater than 20% is not persuasive. Rather, Chen teaches that the
layers below the inductor layers may not contain any metal (i.e., 0% metal
density) or a small amount (i.e., 10%) (col. 5, ll. 41–43). Chen clearly
recognizes that the metal densities in the various metal layers may be
optimized to suit a particular circuit design, which would reasonably include
metal densities of less than 20% in the metal layers. No evidence or
unexpected results for a metal density of 20% in the metal layers has been
provided or alleged by Appellant.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2,
3, 5, 6, and 11 over Marques in view of Rofougaran, Chen and Uchida.

CONCLUSION

2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s citations to Marques and Uchida on
page 8 of the Final Action. We do not find any explicit disclosure in these
citations of a metal density of less than 20% in the metal layers. We focus on
Chen’s teachings in our analysis below.
Appeal 2019-003590
Application 14/534,311

10
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–10, 12 § 103 Marques,
Rofougaran,
Chen
1, 7–10,
12

2, 3, 5, 6, 11 § 103 Marques,
Rofougaran,
Chen,
Uchida
2, 3, 5, 6,
11

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–
12

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). See 37 C.F.R. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED