Texas Instruments Incorporated et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 20202020001317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) 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. 15/162,888 05/24/2016 Matthew David Romig TI-75681 5914 23494 7590 12/01/2020 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER PAPE, ZACHARY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2020 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW DAVID ROMIG, ROBERT CLAIR KELLER, MING LI, and YIQI TANG Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 24, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed March 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action mailed May 31, 2019 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief filed August 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer mailed October 2, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–27, 29–35, 37, and 38. Appeal Br. 4–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to an antenna for high- frequency, wireless electronic circuits. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br., Claims Appendix 10): 21. An apparatus comprising: a substrate; at least one integrated circuit attached to the substrate; an antenna attached to the at least one integrated circuit; and a first heat spreader composed of a dielectric material attached to the antenna. Claim 33 is also independent and recites an apparatus having similar recitations as recited in claim 21. Id. at 11. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kuo et al. hereinafter “Kuo” US 8,357,345 B1 January 22, 2013 Deem et al. hereinafter “Deem” US 2010/0211059 A1 August 19, 2010 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejected claims 21–23, 25–27, 29–35, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”), and Kuo. Final Act. 3–5. 2. The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over AAPA, Kuo, and Deem. Final Act. 6. OPINION Rejection 1 Appellant presents separate, but similar arguments with respect to independent claims 21 and 33 subject to this rejection. See Appeal Br. 4–8. We select claim 21 as representative for disposition of this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 The Examiner indicated the rejection of claims 39 and 40 (see Final Act. 6–7) has been overcome as a result of those claims being cancelled. Advisory Action mailed May 31, 2019 1 (Box 5). Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 4 The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 21 over AAPA and Kuo, the Examiner found AAPA discloses an apparatus as recited in claim 21 with the exception of a heat spreader that is comprised of a dielectric material. Final Act. 3; citing AAPA, Spec. ¶ 6, Fig. 1C. The Examiner found Kuo discloses a heat spreader made of aluminum nitride. Kuo, col. 1, ll. 31–40. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have made the heat spreader of AAPA out of aluminum nitride, because Kuo discloses such heat spreaders have a high heat transfer coefficient, high insulation resistivity, excellent mechanical strength, and vibration-resistance. Final Act. 3. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant contends Kuo is not analogous art. Appeal Br. 4–6. In particular, Appellant contends Kuo discloses a method for removing oxygen from aluminum nitride by carbon in an oven, which is not in the same field of endeavor as an integrated circuit packaged electronic circuit with an antenna used in a wireless application. Id. at 4–5. Appellant argues Kuo is not reasonably pertinent because it does not address the same problem or serve the same purpose as the device of claim 21. Id. at 5. Appellant argues the LED device of Kuo does not have an antenna, and as such, Kuo does not address the problem identified in the Specification of degradation of wireless signals transmitted from an antenna when a heat spreader is attached to the antenna. Id. Appellant argues the problems and improvements in an oven with extremely high operating temperature disclosed in Kuo do not apply to an electronic circuit, much less to the problem of degradation of wireless Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 5 signals transmitted from an antenna when a heat spreader is attached to the antenna. Id. at 6. Issue Did Appellant demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Kuo is analogous art? Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Determining whether a reference is non-analogous art is a two-fold inquiry. First, we must decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor; if it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). “‘A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.’” In re ICON Health and Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (Fed Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In the instant case, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that AAPA and Kuo are from different fields of endeavor. In particular, Kuo discloses LED devices that are used as backlights for cell phones, which have heat dissipation issues. Kuo, col. 1, ll. 15–40. Appellant’s Specification discloses wireless chips for mobile applications requiring heat Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 6 dissipation. Spec. ¶¶ 1–3. Appellant has not sufficiently explained why Kuo’s use of an oven in the method of producing the aluminum nitride heat sinks disclosed therein (Kuo, col. 1, ll. 59–62), means that Kuo is in a different field of endeavor. That is, Appellant’s argument compares a method of making of a component in the prior art to an end use of an assembled device in the Specification. Appellant has not sufficiently explained the relevance of such a comparison where both Kuo and the Specification involve mobile electronic devices. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Kuo is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Kuo discloses that the aluminum nitride heat sink exhibits a high heat transfer coefficient, a high insulation resistivity, an excellent mechanical strength, and is refractory and vibration-resistant. Kuo, col. 1, ll. 31–35. Appellant has not sufficiently explained why the properties of the aluminum nitride heat sink disclosed in Kuo, in particular, a high heat transfer coefficient and high insulation resistivity, would not have logically commended the inventor’s attention in addressing heat dissipation and degradation of wireless signals transmitted from an antenna array with a copper heat spreader bonded thereto. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4–5; Spec. ¶ 6. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as well as claims 22, 23, 25–27, 29–35, 37, and 38. Rejection 2 Appellant does not separately argue claim 24, which depends from claim 21 and is the subject of Rejection 2. Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we Appeal 2020-001317 Application 15/162,888 7 affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 21. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–23, 25– 27, 29–35, 37, 38 103 AAPA, Kuo 21–23, 25– 27, 29–35, 37, 38 24 103 AAPA, Kuo, Deem 24 Overall Outcome 21–27, 29– 35, 37, 38 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation