Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

14286562 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/286,562 05/23/2014
23494 7590 10/02/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dok Won Lee
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.
TI-72589 7995
EXAMINER
PARK, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOK WON LEE,
WILLIAM D. FRENCH, and ANDREI P APOU
Appeal2018-001843
Application 14/286,562 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sturcken2 in view of Gouchi et al. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest, and the Applicant, is said to be Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Appeal Brief dated August 7, 2017 ("App. Br."), at 2.
2 US 2014/0068932 Al, published March 13, 2014 ("Sturcken").
3 US 2014/0043196 Al, published February 13, 2014 ("Gouchi").
Appeal2018-001843
Application 14/286,562
Claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief.
The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. An integrated magnetic device, comprising:
an integrated circuit including:
a silicon wafer substrate having a top surface;
an active region formed near the top surface of the silicon wafer
for defining a transistor;
an insulating layer formed above the active region;
a first polymer layer formed above the insulating layer;
a second polymer layer formed above the first polymer layer;
a third polymer layer formed above the second polymer layer;
a fourth polymer layer formed above the third polymer layer;
a first conducting layer placed in the second polymer layer to
form a lower coil member of a coil positioned along a cross-sectional
surface of the second, third, and fourth polymer layers and above the
active region insulated by the insulating layer;
a second conducting layer placed in the fourth polymer layer to
form an upper coil member of the coil; and
a magnet core placed in the third polymer layer and positioned
between the lower coil member and the upper coil member.
App. Br. 12.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Sturcken discloses an integrated magnetic device as
recited in claim 1, with the exception of first, second, third, and fourth polymer
layers. Instead, the Examiner finds that Sturcken discloses first, second, third, and
fourth dielectric layers that correspond to the claimed polymer layers. Final Act.
4--5. 4 Annotated Sturcken Figure 3A, reproduced below, illustrates the Examiner's
findings. Final Act. 3.
4 Final Office Action dated May 5, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001843
Application 14/286,562
Annotated Sturcken Fig. 3A is a schematic
cross-sectional view of a planar magnetic core
inductor integrated into a multilevel wiring network.
Gouchi discloses an antenna device comprising a magnetic substance and a
coil conductor. Gouchi ,r 3. The Examiner finds that Gouchi discloses a polymer
resin polyimide which is a dielectric material that can be substituted for the first,
second, third, and fourth dielectric layers in Sturcken. Final Act. 6 ( citing Gouchi
,r 78). The Examiner finds that the combination of Sturcken and Gouchi is a
simple substitution of one known dielectric material for another known dielectric
material. 5 Final Act. 6; see also In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982)
("Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to
render such substitution obvious."). As additional support for that finding, the
5 The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate Gouchi's polyimide material as the first, second,
third, and fourth dielectric material of Sturcken "because the combined integrated
magnetic device would provide a thermoplastic resin having plasticity, which
provides high rigidity and is more resistant to breakage." Final Act. 6 (citing
Gouchi ,r,r 78, 126). The Appellants argue that the Examiner's conclusion is
erroneous. It is not necessary to address the Appellants' arguments in view of our
alternative reasons for sustaining the obviousness rejection on appeal.
3
Appeal2018-001843
Application 14/286,562
Examiner directs our attention to Figure 4 and column 5, line 35 to column 5, line
45 of Kossives et al., 6 Figure 4 and paragraph 4 7 of F eygenson et al., 7 and Figures
2-3 and paragraph 56 of Hiatt et al. 8 Adv. Act. 7-8. 9
The Appellants do not dispute that the polymer resin polyimide disclosed in
Gouchi is a dielectric material and thus has insulating properties. Rather, the
Appellants argue that "the fabrication process of the Sturcken small-scale device is
drastically different from that of the Gouchi large-scale antenna." App. Br. 9. The
Appellants argue:
On the one hand, Sturcken teaches an integration circuit fabrication
scheme that requires fine precision deposition and etching of the
dielectric layers, which has a tolerance margin of only a few
microns. . . . And on the other hand, Gouchi teaches a fabrication
scheme for large-scale standalone antenna device, which employs a
process that does not require the same precision as in Sturcken. As an
example, instead of depositing the resin layers, Gouchi teaches simply
laminating the resin layers on top of each other and perform either a
thermocompression process or an adhesive process to bind these resin
layers together.
App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner explains that the combination of Sturcken and
Gouchi is based on the substitution of one known dielectric material for another
known dielectric material, not an incorporation of Gouchi' s fabrication method
into the method of Sturcken. Ans. 11. 10 The Examiner relies on Kossives,
Feygenson, and Hiatt as additional evidence that Sturcken's dielectric material and
Gouchi's polymer resin polyimide are known equivalents and that Gouchi's
6 US 6,118,351, issued September 12, 2000 ("Kossives").
7 US 2002/0037434 Al, published March 28, 2002 ("Feygenson").
8 US 2003/0005569 Al, published January 9, 2003 ("Hiatt").
9 Advisory Action dated July 20, 2017.
10 Examiner's Answer dated October 20, 2017.
4
Appeal2018-001843
Application 14/286,562
polymer is easily fabricated with fine precision. Ans. 12; see also, e.g., Kossives,
col. 5, 11. 54--58 (disclosing that first, second, and third insulative layers may be
formed from an inorganic composition ( e.g., silicon-dioxide), an organic polymer
(e.g., a polyimide) or any other insulating material); Hiatt ,r,r 56-57 (disclosing that
an insulating layer of polymer is deposited and then defined by standard thin film
techniques to create a trench). Significantly, the Appellants do not address the
Examiner's findings relating to Kossives, Feygenson, or Hiatt in either the Appeal
Brief or the Reply Brief.
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection is
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5