Ex Parte Genik et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2018

13702076 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/702,076
69054 7590
RECHES PA TENTS
211 North Union St.
Suite 100
FILING DATE
12/05/2012
09/26/2018
Alexandria, VA 22314
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anatoly Genik
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.
8469-US 3891
EXAMINER
KARIMY, TIMOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHES0@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANATOL Y GENIK and ALEX MOSTOV
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,07 6
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to an integrated circuit including a
differential power amplifier with a single ended output embedded therein
and more specifically wherein the integrated circuit package includes an
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,076
integrated BALUN (i.e., balanced input to unbalanced output) converter to
provide the single ended output (Spec. 1; claim 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An integrated circuit, comprising: a die with an electronic circuit
embedded thereon; wherein the electronic circuit includes a
differential power amplifier that produces two output signals
with a phase shift between them and pads to electronically
interface with the electronic circuit; a packaging encasing the die
with contact pins to connect between the integrated circuit and
external elements; wires connecting between the pads and the
contact pins; a balun converter that includes capacitors and
inductors to combine the output signals of the differential power
amplifier to form a single ended output signal at one of the
contact pins; wherein inherent inductance of some of the wires
serve as the inductors of the balun converter.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bums et al. (US 2006/0006949 Al; Jan. 12, 2006)
("Bums") in view ofYahagi et al. (US 2005/0040896 A; Feb. 24,
2005), and Wight et al. (US 2008/0001683 Al; Jan. 3, 2008).
2. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bums in view of Y ahagi, Wight and Cyr et al. (US
2005/0212604 Al; Sept. 29, 2005) ("Cyr").
3. Claims 4, 7, 8, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bums in view of Yahagi, Wight, and Sjoestroem
(US 2009/0096068 Al; Apr. 16, 2009) ("Sjoestroem").
4. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bums in view of Y ahagi, Wight, and Welland et al. (US
7,209,011 B2; Apr. 24, 2007) ("Welland").
2
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,076
5. Claim 11, 12, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bums in view ofYahagi, Wight and Sjoestroem.
6. Claims 13, 14, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bums in view of Y ahagi, Wight, and Dong et al.
(US 2009/0243028 Al; Oct. 1, 2009) ("Dong").
Appellants argue the subject matter of claims 1, 3, and 11, which are
included in rejections (1) and (5) above (App. Br. 9, 12, and 13). Claims
under any rejection not separately argued will stand or fall with claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
We have fully considered all of Appellants' arguments contained in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We find that the preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. We agree with the
Examiner analysis and response to arguments provided on pages 2--4, 8-9,
and 11-13 of the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that Bums does not teach
pads that electrically interface with the electronic circuit, a packaging
encasing the die with contact pins as output terminals, and that some of the
wires serve as the inductors of the converter (App. Br. 9). Appellants
contend that Y ahagi teaches bond wires that connect an integrated circuit to
another circuit but distinguishes between bond wires and inductors (App. Br.
9). Appellants argue that Yahagi teaches away from wires connecting
between the pads and the contact pins wherein the inherent inductance of
some of the wires serve as the inductors of the balun converter (App. Br.
10). Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
3
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,076
have been motivated to use bond pads and pins as electronic terminals of the
integrated circuit because Y ahagi draws a clear distinction between
inductors and bond wires (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue that Wight's
teaching to encase a semiconductor die for protection does not cure the
argued deficiencies with Yahagi and Bums (App. Br. 11).
Appellants' arguments fail to address the teachings of the references
as a whole. In particular, Yahagi use of the same graphical representation
for the bond wire (BWI and BW2) and inductors (LI and L2) (Figures 4 and
5) and Y ahagi' s use of different terms for the bond wire and inductor do not
disparage or otherwise teach away from using the bond wires as inductors.
This is especially true in light of Wight's teaching that it is known in the art
that wire bonds generate a small amount of inductance (Wight ,r 9). Wight
teaches that the shape and length of the wire bonds are predetermined to
provide the required positive inductance to the impedance inverter circuit
(Wight ,r 26). The Examiner's findings are not limited solely to Yahagi's
graphical depiction of a bond wire and an inductor. Rather, the Examiner
finds that Wight teaches that bond wire length may be used to control the
inductance in a circuit (Final Act. 4). Therefore, the teachings of the
references as a whole would have suggested wires connecting between the
pads and the contact pins, a balun converter that includes capacitors and
inductors to combine the output signals of the differential power amplifier to
form a single ended output signal at one of the contact pins, wherein
inherent inductance of some of the wires serve as the inductor of the balun
converter.
4
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,076
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and states "wherein the die is
positioned in the packaging so that the length of the wires will result in wires
having a desired inductance for the balun converter."
With regard to claim 3, Appellants argue that Wight does not teach or
suggest that the die is positioned in the packaging so that the length of the
wires will result in wires having a desired inductance for the balun converter
(App. Br. 12). Appellants contend that the Examiner's rejection is premised
on the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances and this is not sufficient to conclude the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious (Reply Br. 4 ).
The Examiner finds that Wight's teaching regarding adjusting the
length and thickness of the bond wire to optimize the desired inductance
would have included positioning the die to provide the desired length of the
wire (Final Act. 4; Ans. 13).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's obviousness
conclusion. Appellants do not explain the alleged error in the Examiner's
finding that optimizing the bond wire length would have also optimized the
die position. Forming a desired length for the bond wire would have
resulted concomitantly in positioning the die to utilize that desired length. In
other words, it would have been obvious to design the circuit so that the
bond wire length is optimized for the desired inductance and the die is
positioned to accommodate the optimized bond wire length. Appellants'
arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred.
With regard to the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue that
Sjoestroem fails to teach that the first, second and third wires serve as
inductors for the balun converter (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend that
5
Appeal2017-004923
Application 13/702,076
Sjoestroem's teaching that the inductance in the bond wires partially cancel
shows that Sjoestroem's bond wires operate in ways different from that
required by the claims (Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner relied on Sjoestroem to teach using bond pads and
bond wires in an integrated circuit, where the bond wires function as
inductors (Final Act. 9). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to form the contact points between circuit elements of Bums as pads
and to form all the inductors as bonding wires as a known technique to yield
predictable results (Final Act. 9). In other words, the Examiner is not
suggesting to incorporate Sjoestroem's particular inductor arrangement in
Bums. Rather, the Examiner relies on Sjoestroem's teaching to use bond
pads and bond wires as inductors as the basis for using such functionalities
in Bums. Appellants have not shown reversible error in that determination.
Moreover, Wight teaches that the bond wires may be optimized to
affect their ability to function as inductors. As with claim 1, the teachings of
the prior art as a whole would have suggested the subject matter of claim 11.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's rejections ( 1) to ( 6).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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