Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11857569 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

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.
11/857,569 09/19/2007 Jin Cai YOR920070052US1 (006) 1158
70672 7590 02/25/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
THOMAS, TOM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2893
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2013 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 JIN CAI, WILFRIED E. HAENSCH, TAK H. NING, PHILIP J.
OLDIGES and GHAVAM G. SHAHIDI
____________

Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1 and 3-19. Appeal Brief 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a series transistor device that reduces
Single-Event Upset (SEU). Specification 2-5.

Illustrative Claim
1. A series transistor device, comprising:
a series source;
a series drain;
a first constituent transistor having a first source and a first drain; and
a second constituent transistor having a second source and a second
drain, wherein
all of the constituent transistors have a same conductivity type,
the series source is the first source,
the series drain is the second drain, and
a drain of one of the constituent transistors is merged with a source of
another of the constituent transistors, wherein
the series transistor device is a SOI device.

Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13-15, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iwasa (U.S. Patent Number 5,703,381;
issued December 30, 1997) and Morris (U.S. Patent Application Publication
Number 2005/0179093 A1; published August 18, 2005). Answer 4-9.

Claims 1, 4-6, 13-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuda (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2004/0007743 A1; published January 15, 2004) and
Iwasa. Answer 9-17.

Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris and Proebsting (U.S. Patent Number 4,714,840;
issued December 22, 1987). Answer 17-18.

Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwasa and Vinal (U.S. Patent Number 5,151,759; issued
September 29, 1992). Answer 18-19.

Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vinal and Proebsting. Answer 19-20.

Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morris and Proebsting. Answer 20.

Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569

4
Issue on Appeal
Do Iwasa, Morris, Matsuda, Proebsting and Vinal, either alone or in
combination, disclose a series transistor device wherein the device is a SOI
device?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend:
Claim 1 recites a “series transistor device,” and to
teach the claimed series transistor device, the Examiner
relied upon TP1 and TP3 of Iwasa. However, TP 1 and
TP3 of Iwasa would not be viewed by one having skilled
in the art as a series transistor device. Instead, TP1 and
TP3 are two separate transistors in a circuit. A series
transistor device has a single gate, source, and drain,
which are characteristics of a transistor device. However,
TP1 and TP3 have separate gates. Thus, the combination
of TP1 and TP3 is not a series transistor device. Similarly,
claim 13 recites “an input is directly electrically connected
to a gate of the n-channel transistor device and a gate of
the p-channel transistor device.”

Appeal Brief 7.
Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569

5
The Examiner finds Appellants’ definition of series transistor “is not
met by claim 1” and Appellants’ Specification does not particularly define
“a series transistor device.” Answer 21. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings. There is nothing novel about connecting transistors in series.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 only requires transistors that are connected together in a series
format. Appellants argue a specific configuration of the transistors
connected in series which is not recited in claim 1. See Appeal Brief 7.
The Examiner relies upon Matsuda to disclose the claimed input
configuration of claim 13; however, Appellants do not address why Matsuda
is deficient and fails to disclose the claimed invention. See Answer 14; see
also Appeal Brief 10-19. Therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments in
regard to the input configuration to be persuasive.
Appellants further argue that “[t]ransforming a CMOS transistor to a
SOI transistor is no insignificant task.” Appeal Brief 14. Appellants go on
to explain the difficulty of such a task. Id. at 14-19. We do not question the
difficulty in merging CMOS technology with SOI technology; however, as
the Examiner finds, such technology is well known in the art. See Answer
22-23.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 11 and 13, as well as those claims dependent
therefrom.

DECISIONS
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 3-19 are affirmed.
Appeal 2010-010252
Application 11/857,569

6
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb