Ex Parte Dehe et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 24, 2018

14198646 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/198,646 03/06/2014
81722 7590 10/26/2018
Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - Inf
c/o
444 Brickell A venue
Suite 51270
Miami, FL 33131
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alfons Dehe
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.
P53974US 4107
EXAMINER
MCDUFFIE, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
patint@vjp.de
vjp-us@vjp.de
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFONS DEHE, REINHARD GABL, and ULRICH KRUMBEIN
Appeal 2018-003 908
Application 14/198,646 1
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8, 10-16, and 24--29. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Infineon Technologies AG ("Appellant") is the applicant, under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 7, 9, and 17-23 are cancelled. Id. at 5.
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to structures that may be used in
micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) transducers. Spec. ,r 2.
According to the Specification, many MEMS transducer systems "require
that a very thin membrane be suspended between several support structures
in order to operate." Id.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative, and
reads:
1. A structure, comprising:
a earner;
a suspended structure;
a holding structure holding the suspended structure to the
carrier; the holding structure comprising a sidewall having a
curved section that extends from a top surface of the carrier to a
tapered end of the holding structure, the tapered end being
attached to a bottom surface of the suspended structure, wherein
the holding structure is compositionally graded and further
comprises a first material, and a second material different from
the first material that is diffused into the first material, wherein a
concentration of the second material in the first material is
continuously varied as a function of location within the first
material relative to the carrier;
wherein the top surface of the carrier faces toward the
suspended structure,
the curved section of the holding structure has a concave
shape,and
the tapered end of the holding structure physically
connects to the suspended structure, and
wherein at least a portion of the bottom surface of the
suspended structure is free of the holding structure.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Adachi (US 8,188,556 B2, issued May 29, 2012). 3
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Adachi and Langereis (US 2011/0169109 Al, published July 14, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, and 25-29
As for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Adachi discloses a structure
comprising carrier 22, suspended structure 24, and holding structure 23.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner construes the claim term "compositionally
graded" as a product-by-process limitation. Id. at 2-3. The Examiner does
not make an explicit finding that Adachi' s holding structure is
compositionally graded.
The Examiner also finds that Briere4 discloses a semiconductor
structure comprising two materials that are compositionally graded. Id. at 3
( citing Briere ,r 41 ). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use Briere's "compositionally graded" feature "with the
semiconductor of Adachi to reduce impurities within the semiconductor," as
taught to be desirable by Briere. Id. ( citing Briere ,r 42). Based on this
reasoning, we understand that claims 1-6, 8-16, and 25-29 are alternatively
rejected as being obvious over Adachi and Briere.
3 The heading of the rejection also lists cancelled claim 9.
4 US 2013/0069208 Al, published Mar. 21, 2013.
3
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
Appellant contends that the Examiner's construction of the term
"compositionally graded" as a product-by-process limitation is erroneous.
Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellant contends that this term does not describe a
process, but denotes a physical structure or attribute. Id. at 11-12. The
Examiner concedes Appellant's argument is persuasive. Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we understand that the Examiner's rejection based on Adachi
alone has been overcome by Appellant.
Appellant challenges the Examiner's alternative position that it would
have been obvious to modify Adachi's device to include compositionally
graded semiconductor or holding structure in view of Briere. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant contends that Briere is directed to semiconductor structures
including group III-V semiconductor materials used for field-effect
transistors (FETs) and high electron mobility transistors (HEMTs). Id.
( citing Briere ,r,r 4--7). Briere describes how impurity sources can adversely
affect device performance, and "proposes grading of 'impurity
concentration profiles' to address or mitigate these adverse effects." Id.
( citing Briere ,r 3 5). Appellant contends that the semiconductor material that
is compositionally graded in Briere for improved performance is part of a
device layer and is dissimilar to the holding structure in Adachi. Id. at 13.
Specifically, Appellant explains that the semiconductor material is group III-
V semiconductor material (Reply Br. 5 ( citing Briere Abstract)), whereas the
element in Adachi found to correspond to the claimed holding structure is
not made from that material (Appeal Br. 12-13). Accordingly, Appellant
contends, there is no support that compositionally grading the "holding
structure" in Adachi would provide any benefit to Adachi' s semiconductor
sensor. Id. at 13.
4
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
In response, the Examiner submits that Adachi discloses a
semiconductor structure and teaches the use of silicon and oxide in
manufacturing the substrate. Ans. 6. The Examiner submits that Briere
likewise discloses a semiconductor structure, as well as teaching the use of
compositionally graded materials to reduce impurities. Id. The Examiner
finds that Briere discloses that, in addition to carbon, other elements
including silicon and oxygen "may lead to impurities." Id. at 6-7 ( citing
Briere ,r 36). The Examiner acknowledges that "Adachi does not raise the
issue of impurities," but submits that Adachi "disclose[ s] materials that are
known to contain impurities (i.e. silicon and oxygen)." Id. The Examiner
explains that Briere is utilized in the rejection to teach the reduction of
impurities, which "'enables reduced leakage and enhanced standoff voltage
capability while concurrently enabling high speed switching by reducing or
substantially minimizing sources of undesirable dynamic Rdson."' Id.
( quoting Briere ,r 93).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not provide an
adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Adachi in view of Briere to result in the claimed structure. Adachi discloses
a semiconductor sensor comprising N-type Si substrate 22 (first
semiconductor layer), N-type Si thin film 24 (second semiconductor layer),
and Si02 film 23 (insulating layer) located between Si substrate 22 and Si
thin film 24. See Adachi, col. 4, 11. 9--17, Fig. 2. Adachi discloses that the
thickness of Si02 film 23 decreases from an outer circumferential edge
toward a center of diaphragm 25, and includes tapered reinforcement 23a.
Id. at col. 4, 11. 28-35, Fig. 2. Adachi teaches that Si02 film 23 is configured
5
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
to reinforce diaphragm 25, thereby preventing breakage. Id. at col. 6, 11. 8-
18.
Appellant contends that the Examiner does not provide evidence that
Si02 film 23 in Adachi's sensor contains impurities, let alone that impurities
contained in this layer would adversely affect the sensor. Reply Br. 4. We
agree. Appellant also contends, even if Adachi's Si02 film 23 does contain
impurities, the Examiner does not show that this layer would benefit from
having a compositionally graded impurity profile. Id. Appellant points out
that, unlike in Briere, Adachi's Si02 film 23 is not a group III-V compound
semiconductor and does not form part of an active semiconductor device.
Id. at 5. In contrast, Si 02 film 23 is an insulating layer. Id. at 6 ( citing
Adachi, col. 4, 11. 14--17).
We are persuaded that the Examiner's stated reason for modifying
Adachi's Si02 film 23 (i.e., insulating layer), which corresponds to the
benefit described in Briere of reducing the impurity concentration in group
III-V semiconductor material in group III-V device structure (see Ans. 7;
Briere ,r 93), lacks a rational underpinning. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2---6, 8, 10, 11, and 25-28, as
unpatentable over Adachi, or over Adachi and Briere.
Claim 12 is directed to a structure comprising, among other things, a
"holding structure [that] is compositionally graded." Appeal Br. 18 ( Claims
App.). The Examiner's findings and reasoning for rejecting claim 12 are the
same as for claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12, or of claims 13-16 and 29 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Adachi, or over Adachi and Briere.
6
Appeal2018-003908
Application 14/198,646
Rejection of Claim 24
As claim 24 depends from claim 1, for consistency, we treat this
rejection as being based on Adachi and Langereis, or, alternatively, over
Adachi, Briere, and Langereis. For both cases, the Examiner's reliance on
Langereis in rejecting claim 24 fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection
of claim 1 discussed above. See Final Act. 4--5. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 24 as unpatentable over Adachi and Langereis,
or over Adachi, Briere, and Langereis.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 10-16, and 24--29.
REVERSED
7