Raytheon Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

15201905 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
15/201,905 07/05/2016 Istvan Rodriguez RTN2-353PUS/16-8150-
US-NP
3947
51503 7590 03/30/2020
RAYTHEON COMPANY
c/o DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
ONE UNIVERSITY AVENUE
SUITE 201B
WESTWOOD, MA 02090
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
amk@dc-m.com
docketing@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ISTVAN RODRIGUEZ,
CHRISTOPHER M. LAIGHTON, and ALAN J. BIELUNIS
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Raytheon
Company. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November 30, 2018, p. 1.
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

2
unpatentable over AAPA2 in view of Adlerstein,3 Hauenstein,4 Takada,5 and
Mooney.67 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.8
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention is directed to high thermal loads generated in
Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits (“MMIC”). Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant
discloses a microwave amplifier having a field effect transistor (“FET”)
formed on an upper surface of a substrate and a de-Q’ing section connected
to the FET. Id. ¶ 8. More particularly, Appellant discloses an embodiment of
the microwave amplifier wherein the FET source is connected to a ground
plane conductor disposed on a bottom surface of the substrate through an
electrically conductive via passing through the substrate and the FET drain
connected to a drain voltage bus through a choke. Id. ¶ 9. The amplifier’s
de-Q’ing section includes a de-Q’ing resistive via passing through the
substrate and a de-Q’ing capacitor having first and second dielectrically
separated plates, one of which is connected to the ground plane conductor

2 Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), corresponding to Figures 2A–
2C and Specification (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 6 and 7, filed July 5, 2016.
3 Adlerstein, US 5,126,701, issued June 30, 1992.
4 Hauenstein, US 2007/0138651 A1, published June 21, 2007.
5 Takada, JP 08097367 A, published April 12, 1996. The Examiner relies,
without objection, on an English-language machine translation of this
reference. We, likewise, rely on this translation document in our Decision
which we refer to as “Takada.”
6 Mooney et al., US 2013/0021115 A1, published January 24, 2013
(“Mooney”).
7 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated February 6, 2019, pp. 4–16.
8 Our Decision additionally refers to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
April 3, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

3
through the de-Q’ing resistive via and the other of which is connected to the
drain voltage bus. Id. The resistive via may comprise either a solid or a
hollow resistive material and may be disposed under the capacitor. Id. ¶¶ 45,
46.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A microwave amplifier, comprising:
a substrate;
a field effect transistor having a source, drain and gate
formed on an upper surface of the substrate,
a first one of the source and drain being connected to a
ground plane conductor disposed on a bottom surface of the
substrate through an via passing through the substrate;
a choke connected to a second one of the source and
drain;
a de-Q’ing section coupled to the field effect transistor
through the choke, comprising;
a de-Q’ing resistor disposed on walls of the via and
passing through the substrate;
a de-Q’ing capacitor having a first plate thereof
connected to the choke and a second plate thereof disposed
on the upper surface of the substrate connected to the ground
plane conductor through the de-Q’ing resistor;
wherein the first plate is dielectrically separated from the
second plate, and
wherein the de-Q’ing resistor is disposed under, and
connected to, the second plate of the de-Q’ing capacitor, the
de-Q’ing resistor comprising a resistive material disposed on
walls of the via and passing through the substrate between
the second plate of the de-Q’ing capacitor and the ground
plane conductor.
Independent claim 3 recites a microwave amplifier similar to that of
claim 1, wherein the de-Q’ing resistor passes between the second plate of the
de-Q’ing capacitor and a ground plane conductor disposed on a bottom
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

4
surface of the substrate, with a second end of the resistor being connected to
the ground plane conductor.
Independent claim 9 recites a microwave amplifier similar to that of
claim 1, wherein the de-Q’ing resistor has a resistance to suppress
resonances between the choke and the de-Q’ing capacitor.
OPINION
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions
and the appeal record before us, we determine that Appellant’s arguments
are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining
that appellant has the burden of identifying reversible error in a rejection).
Indeed, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments
with respect to the prima facie case of obviousness, which we adopt as our
own. Accordingly, we affirm the stated rejection. We offer the following for
emphasis only.
For purposes of this appeal, to the extent that the claims on appeal are
separately argued, we address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vi).
Independent Claims 1, 3, and 9
Appellant does not substantively argue claim 3 apart from claim 1,
and presents substantively similar arguments for claims 1 and 9. Compare
Appeal Br. 5–7 and id. at 9 and 10. Therefore, we select claim 1 as
representative in our opinion below, wherein claims 3 and 9 stand or fall
with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

5
The Examiner rejects claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Adlerstein, Hauenstein, Takada, and
Mooney. The Examiner’s Answer sets forth a complete statement of this
rejection including the Examiner’s findings and reasons for concluding that
the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. Ans. 4–11.
Appellant argues that a conductive via does not inherently function as
a resistor, and Hauenstein, in particular, teaches that conductive material in a
via has to be configured in a specific manner to function as a resistor.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant urges that Mooney connects the bottom plate of a
capacitor on the top of a substrate directly to ground on the bottom of the
substrate via a ground via, whereas the upper plate is connected to a resistor.
Id. at 7. Thus, Appellant contends that Mooney’s conductive via is not
configured as, and teaches away from, a resistor. Id. at 6. Appellant also
asserts that Mooney fails to teach or suggest configuring the via with a
resistance to suppress resonances between the choke and the de-Q’ing
capacitor. Id. Appellant further argues that none of Hauenstein, Takada, and
Mooney alone or in combination recognize the advantage of locating the
capacitor over the via such that the via may be formed as the de-Q’ing
resistor. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Initially,
although we agree the Examiner’s finding that any conductive material
inherently possesses a resistance, we cannot agree with the Examiner that
this finding means that all conductive vias are resistors or comprise resistive
material. We recognize that conductors inherently possess a resistance, albeit
generally small, and resistors inherently conduct electricity. What
distinguishes conductors and resistors is, as Hauenstein describes, whether
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

6
they are configured primarily to conduct current with negligible resistance or
to resist or limit current.
Though we find that the Examiner’s finding that all conductive vias
are resistors or comprise resistive material is erroneous, this error is
harmless in this case. The Examiner finds that Takada teaches that a via may
be formed as a resistor through the substrate of an MMIC in order to
increase integration and to reduce the space taken by passive elements. Ans.
9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have moved
the AAPA’s de-Q’ing resistor into the via in order to increase integration
and reduce the space taken by the resistor on the substrate as taught by
Takada with a reasonable expectation of success. Appellant fails to dispute
or otherwise address the Examiner’s finding and obviousness conclusion
regarding Takada.
In addition, although Appellant contends that Mooney teaches away
from a resistor via, we note that the Examiner’s rejection does not depend on
Mooney for this feature as discussed above. As the Examiner finds (Ans.
11), Mooney teaches a de-Q’ing circuit including a resistor, inductor, and
capacitor, wherein the lower plate of the capacitor is disposed directly over a
via connecting to a ground plane conductor. Appellant does not dispute or
otherwise address this finding. The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to form the lower plate of the AAPA’s de-Q’ing capacitor
directly over the resistive via of the AAPA de-Q’ing resistor as modified in
view of Takada, as Mooney teaches, in order to save additional space on the
MMIC substrate. Id.
To the extent that Appellant’s argument that Mooney teaches away
from a resistor via implies that Mooney teaches away from a combination
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

7
with Takada as set forth in the rejection, this argument is not persuasive. “A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a
general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Here, Appellant does not direct our attention to any teaching in Mooney, nor
do we find any, criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the use of
Takada’s resistor via in combination with Mooney’s placement of the
capacitor directly over the via in the AAPA MMIC to increase integration
and reduce the space occupied by these devices on the substrate.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s assertion that Mooney fails
to teach or suggest configuring the via with a resistance to suppress
resonances between the choke and the de-Q’ing capacitor. In this regard, we
note that the AAPA teaches that the known de-Q’ing resistor “is used to
suppress or de-Q resonances that may be create[d] between the choke and
the bypass capacitor.” Spec. ¶ 7. Thus, it is not relevant that Mooney does
not teach this feature. Further, Appellant fails to address Takada and,
therefore, fails to explain why modifying the AAPA MMIC in view of
Takada so as to provide the de-Q’ing resistor as a via connecting the
capacitor to the ground plane conductor would not have been obvious.
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 9.
Claims 2, 4, and 11
Claims 2 and 4 depend from claims 1 and 3, respectively, and further
require that the resistive material of the via has a hollow region therein.
Claim 11 depends from claim 9, and further requires that portions of the
resistive material of the via are separated by a gap.
Appellant asserts that the hollow region or hole in the via “allows for
expansion of the resistive material 34’ as such material absorbs microwave
power and as the absorbed power is conducted away to the SiC substrate
16.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that none of the applied references teach
or suggest providing a hollow resistive via that is capable of expansion to
absorb microwave power. Id. Appellant contends that because Mooney’s via
is not a resistor, it is improper to rely on Mooney’s teaching of a hollow via
to modify the AAPA de-Q’ing resistor. Id. at 8–9.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Although it
appears that the Examiner relied, at least in part, on Mooney’s teaching that
the via may be hollow, such does not amount to reversible error in the
rejection even though we agree with Appellant that Mooney does not teach a
resistor via. As explained above, Takada clearly teaches a resistor via in a
MMIC. Takada, like Mooney, also teaches that this via may have a hollow
region or portions separated by a gap. Takada Fig. 2; Mooney Fig. 3B.
Appellant fails to address Takada and, therefore, fails to explain why it
would not have been obvious to form a resistor via with a hollow region as
taught in Takada, as a known configuration for vias, as further evidenced by
Mooney, in the AAPA MMIC, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

9
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 4, and 11.
Claims 5–8 and 10
Appellant merely repeats the limitation of each of these claims, but
does not identify reversible error in or otherwise argue the rejection of these
claims. Appeal Br. 10, 11. A mere recitation of the claim limitations is not
an argument for separate patentability within the meaning of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and does not merit separation consideration. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, with regard to
claims 5–8, we note Appellant refers to paragraph 7 in discussing these
claims, which the Examiner finds, without dispute, is a portion of
Appellant’s admitted prior art. See Ans. 5 and 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 5–8 and 10.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA in view of Adlerstein,
Hauenstein, Takada, and Mooney is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–11 103
AAPA, Adlerstein,
Hauenstein,
Takada, Mooney
1–11
Appeal 2019-003559
Application 15/201,905

10
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