Ex Parte Leedy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

12143772 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/143,772 06/21/2008 Glenn J. Leedy E080621.VSI.US3 1142
30232 7590 10/29/2013
USEFUL ARTS IP
MICHAEL J. URE
10518 PHIL PLACE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
EXAMINER
MENZ, LAURA MARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GLENN J. LEEDY
____________

Appeal 2013-007277
Application 12/143,772
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, HUBERT C. LORIN, and,
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-14. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of using a stacked integrated circuit comprising: placing
the stacked integrated circuit in proximity to at least one other stacked
integrated circuit, thereby causing wireless communication between the
stacked integrated circuits to occur.

The Examiner relies upon the following reference in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Turlington et al. (Turlington) 5,940,031 Aug. 17, 1999
Appeal 2013-007277
Application 12/143,772

2
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method of causing
wireless communication between stacked integrated circuits that are in
proximity to one another.
Appealed claims 1, 2, and 5-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Turlington. Claim 14 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Turlington.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
Appellant contends that Turlington does not relate to a stacked
integrate circuit but, rather, to "what are in essence stacked circuit board
modules" (Br. 9, first para.). Appellant maintains that although a computer
motherboard is populated with integrated circuits, it "is not referred to as 'an
integrated circuit'" (id.). Appellant concludes, therefore, that "the stacked
circuit board modules of Turlington are not and cannot be referred to as
stacked integrated circuits" (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellant has not defined "stacked integrated circuit" in any
way which would reasonably exclude the stacked structure of Turlington
depicted in Figure 8, comprising stacked modules 76 comprising MMICs
(monolithic microwave integrated circuits). Appellant has proffered no
objective evidence which supports the argument that there is a meaningful
Appeal 2013-007277
Application 12/143,772

3
distinction between a stack of integrated circuits and stacked integrated
circuits such that the claimed stacked integrated circuit does not read upon
the stack of integrated circuits described by Turlington.
Appellant also contends that Turlington does not teach or suggest
causing wireless communication between stacked structures. According to
Appellant, although intercommunication between the layers of the stacked
structure of Turlington may be implied, such communication is wired, not
wireless. Appellant maintains that nothing in the arrangement of Turlington's
Figure 4 "would suggest that these T/R modules 76 communicate with one
another" (Br. 11, third para.). We, like the Examiner, do not agree.
Turlington clearly teaches, referencing Figure 4, that adjacent T/R
modules 76 communicate with each other through circulator assembly 92 via
the wireless radiating element 90 (see col. 4, ll. 36-47). In the words of the
Examiner, "[a]s shown in Fig. 4 of Turlington, stacked IC 76 uses radiating
element 90 to send out a wireless signal intended to communicate and be
received by the bottom stacked IC 76" (Ans. 10, last para.). Also, we agree
with the Examiner that while the circulator elements of Turlington may be
wired, "[t]he inclusion of a wired interconnection does not preclude
Turlington from teaching a wireless communication" (id.). Significantly, the
appealed claims do not require that the communication between the stacked
integrated circuits be exclusively wireless. Also, as set forth by the
Examiner, Appellant's "specification also teaches using in conjunction both
wired and wireless interconnections" (Ans. 11, first sentence).
We note that Appellant has presented no argument to rebut the
Examiner's legal conclusion that "it would have been obvious to one of
Appeal 2013-007277
Application 12/143,772

4
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
Turlington's teachings in include such a PLD [programmable logic device]
because it is well known in the art to implement PLDs in applications where
programmable control is required" (Ans., sentence bridging pages 7-8).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam