Ex Parte Luk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201412542796 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/542,796 08/18/2009 Wing K. Luk YOR920030603US2 6130 48063 7590 09/19/2014 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER SCHOENHOLTZ, JOSEPH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2893 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2014 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 WING K. LUK and ROBERT H. DENNARD ____________________ Appeal 2012-006902 Application 12/542,796 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious, relying upon the combination of Voldman1 and Scott2 as evidence of the obviousness of claims 1-4 and Assaderaghi3 and Voldman as evidence of the obviousness of claims 1-3 and 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). 1 Voldman et al., US 6,015,993, patented Jan. 18, 2000. 2 Scott et al., US 2002/0063263 A1, pub. May 30, 2002. 3 Assaderaghi et al., US 5,811,857, patented Sep. 22, 1998. Appeal 2012-006902 Application 12/542,796 2 For the reasons provided in the Answer, we AFFIRM. Appellants do not argue any claim apart from the others. We select claim 1 as representative for deciding the issues on appeal, and we rely upon the copy of the claim as reproduced in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief filed February 8, 2012 (Claims App’x at Br. 11). The Examiner presents well supported findings of fact and reasons for combining the teachings of the references in the Answer filed March 12, 2012. Contrary to the arguments of Appellants, the Examiner’s rationale supports a finding of modifying the teachings of the primary references, Voldman and Assaderaghi respectively, to obtain a semiconductor device of the structure claimed. Nor have Appellants convinced us that the prior art teaches away from the device of claim 1. “[I]n general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants point to no suggestions in the references that criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed, and the mere fact that a reference teaches something somewhat different from Appellants’ solution does not mean the reference teaches away from other solutions and modifications known elsewhere in the art. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. Appeal 2012-006902 Application 12/542,796 3 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)(1). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation