Ex Parte Lobl et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201310527115 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HANS LOBL, ROBERT MILSOM, CHRISTOF METZMACHER, HANS-WOLFGANG BRAND, MAREIKE KLEE, and RAINER KIEWITT ____________ Appeal 2010-011683 Application 10/527,115 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 2010-011683 Application 10/527,115 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 7-10 and 15-24. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The present invention is directed to “bulk acoustic wave filters that are constructed of bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonators which can be connected in a ladder or in a lattice type configuration.” Specification 1. Illustrative Claim 7. A bulk acoustic wave (BAW) resonator comprising: a top electrode; a piezoelectric layer disposed adjacent to the top electrode; a bottom electrode disposed adjacent to the piezoelectric layer, wherein the bottom electrode is disposed opposite the top electrode relative to the piezoelectric layer; and a substrate disposed opposite the piezoelectric layer relative to the bottom electrode, wherein the substrate comprises an uneven surface to suppress a spurious mode, wherein the uneven surface is on a rear side of the substrate facing away from the bottom electrode. Appeal 2010-011683 Application 10/527,115 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Nishihara (U.S. Patent Number 6,734,763 B2; issued May 11, 2004). Answer 3-4. Claims 7, 8, and 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishihara. Answer 4-8. Claims 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishihara and Korbin (U.S. Patent Number 5,936,150; issued August 10, 1999). Answer 8-9. Issue on Appeal Does Nishihara disclose a resonator wherein the substrate comprises an uneven surface on the rear side in reference to the bottom electrode adjacent a piezoelectric layer as claimed? 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 argue: First, the suggestion that it would have been obvious to modify Nishihara to include an uneven surface “in order to Appeal 2010-011683 Application 10/527,115 4 form the device as understood by Nishihara et al.” is unclear and further gives no rational underpinning to support the asserted conclusion of obviousness. Appellants submit that if the device of Nishihara were modified, the reason to modify the device cannot come from the description of the Nishihara itself, because the device described in Nishihara is not modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants also argue, “Second, the Examiner does not provide reasoning to show how an uneven surface on the side of the substrate that faces away from the bottom electrode would improve adhesion between the substrate and the device structure. Nishihara does not teach adhesion between the substrate and the device structure.” Id. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner did not provide rational underpinning to support his assertion of obviousness (Appeal Brief 8) because we find that the Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to modify Nishihara by utilizing a substrate wherein the rear side of the substrate has an uneven surface in order to improve adhesion between the substrate and the overall device structure is sufficient enough to support his assertion of obviousness. See Answer 5. The limitation in claim 7 “wherein the substrate comprises an uneven surface” does not quantify the vertical deviations of the surface of the substrate nor does it require a roughening of the surface. Claim 7 only requires an uneven surface. Hence Nishihara’s substrate could be single side polished as opposed to double side polished wherein both methods are notoriously well known in the art of wafer/substrate preparation. In a single side polishing procedure, one surface would be polished to prep for Appeal 2010-011683 Application 10/527,115 5 fabrication, while the rear side would be left unpolished to improve adhesion to either the structure or back-side metallization. Appellants’ argument that Nishihara’s disclosed direct bonding or anodic bonding would suffer with a rough surface area is not persuasive because single side polishing would not require reducing the amount of contact area of the substrate as Appellants contends. Appeal Brief 9. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 7, as well as, independent claim 20, commensurate in scope and those claims dependent therefrom, not separately argued claims 8, 16-19 and 21-24. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9, 10 and 15, not separately argued for the same reasons as stated above. Having reached a decision on the merits in regard to all of the claims, we will not address the merits of the anticipation rejection of claims 7, 8, and 16 by Nishihara. DECISION The obviousness rejections of claims 7-10 and 15-24 are 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation