Ex Parte Singh et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2009

10665993 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAMINDERPAL SINGH, YOURI V. TRETIAKOV,
KUNAL VAED, and WAYNE H. WOODS, JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 June 10, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-4, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (filed August 7, 2006) and the Answer (mailed
December 18, 2006) for the respective details. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008)).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a vertically stacked coplanar
transmission line structure for an integrated circuit design. The structure
includes a micro-strip pair of first and second vertically stacked coplanar
conductors, each having a metal layer, a next metal layer down, and an
intermediate connecting via layer between the two metal layers. (See
generally Spec. ¶¶ [0006]-[0008]).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A vertically stacked coplanar transmission line structure
for an integrated circuit (IC) chip defining a closed ground
return path within the transmission line structure, comprising:
a micro-strip pair of first and second vertically stacked coplanar
conductors, each first and second vertical stack comprising a
metal layer, a next metal layer down, and an intermediate
connecting via layer in between the metal layer and the next
metal layer down, said intermediate connecting via layer
comprising a via bar having a width dimension approximately
equal to a width dimension of said first and second vertically
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

3
stacked coplanar conductors and having a length dimension
approximately equal to a length dimension of said first and
second vertically stacked coplanar conductors.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Hajimiri US 2004/0222859 A1 Nov. 11, 2004
(filed May 8, 2003)
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hajimiri.2

ISSUES
The pivotal issues before us in making the determination of whether
the Examiner correctly rejected appealed claims 1-4, 7, and 8 for
anticipation are whether Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner
erred in finding that Hajimiri discloses:
i) a transmission line structure formed as a micro-strip pair
of first and second vertically stacked coplanar conductors;
ii) an intermediate connecting via bar layer in between the
metal layers of the first and second vertical stacks of conductors; and
iii) the width and length of the intermediate connecting via
bar layer being approximately equal to the width and length of the first and
second vertically stacked coplanar conductors.

2 Although the Examiner’s stated anticipation rejection cites 35 U.S.C. §
102(b), the rejection should properly be based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) since
the Nov. 11, 2004 publication date of the Hajimiri reference is after the
September 18, 2003 filing date of Appellants’ application. We treat this as a
harmless, inadvertent error on the part of the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Hajimiri discloses (Fig. 5A; ¶ [0028]) a vertically stacked
coplanar transmission line structure with a metal layer 606 and a “next metal
layer down” 602.
2. Hajimiri further discloses (¶ [0016]) that the disclosed
transmission line structure can be implemented as a “micro-strip” line.
3. Also disclosed by Hajimiri (Fig. 5A; ¶ [0028]) is an
intermediate connecting transmission line layer 604 in between the metal
layers 602 and 606.
4. Hajimiri illustrates different transmission line configurations,
one (Fig. 5A) in which the metal layers and the interconnecting layer are
depicted as being the same width and length, and another (Fig. 6A) in which
the metal layers and the interconnecting layer are depicted as being of
different widths and lengths.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim.” See In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

5
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.,
190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if granting patent
protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the
public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless
of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.”).

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection, based on Hajimiri, of representative independent claim 1 assert
that the Examiner has not shown how each of the claimed features is present
in the disclosure of Hajimiri so as to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation.3 Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5-6) initially focus on the
contention that, in contrast to the claimed micro-strip pair transmission line
structure, Hajimiri’s disclosure is directed to a traveling-wave amplifier
structure (TWAS) that functions as an oscillator.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive in convincing us of
any error in the Examiner’s stated position. We agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 3, 5, and 6) that Hajimiri discloses (see FFs 1 and 3) a transmission
line structure in a vertically stacked coplanar configuration which, as
disclosed, can be implemented as a micro-strip line (see FF 2).

3 Appellants argue claims 1-4, 7, and 8 together as a group. See App. Br. 8.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

6
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (Br. 6-7)
that the Examiner’s identification of the transmission line 604 in the Figure
5A illustration of Hajimiri as corresponding to the claimed intermediate
connecting via layer is in error. We note that the fact that Hajimiri uses
different terminology from the instant claims is undisputed since the term
“via” does not appear in Hajimiri. However, the reference need not use the
same terms to be within the scope of what is claimed. In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans.
3, 7, and 8) that Hajimiri’s conductive layer 604, which is intermediately
connected between the top metal layer 606 and the bottom metal layer 602,
as illustrated in Hajimiri’s Figure 5A, corresponds to the claimed
intermediate connecting “via” layer structure. Appellants’ contention (Br.
7) that the fact that the intermediate connecting layer 604 of Hajimiri
couples the transmission lines 602 and 606 through active devices
(amplifiers 608, 610) precludes it from being considered a “via” layer is not
supported by any evidence on the record before us.
Lastly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of any error in
the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3 and 8) that the drawing illustrations in Figure
5A of Hajimiri provide a disclosure that the intermediately connected
transmission layer bar 604, i.e., a via, is the same width and length as the
first and second transmission line metal layers 602 and 606. It is well settled
that the drawings of a prior art disclosure must be evaluated for what they
reasonably disclose to one of ordinary skill. It is immaterial whether the
illustrated feature may be unintended or unexplained in the prior art
disclosure. See In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911 (CCPA 1979).
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

7
As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 8), Hajimiri does provide an
illustration of an embodiment (Figs. 6A) in which the transmission line
layers and their connecting line layers are depicted as being of different
widths and lengths. With this in mind, it is reasonable to conclude, as did
the Examiner, that when Hajimiri does illustrate (Fig. 5A) the transmission
line layers as having equal widths and lengths, this depiction of equal
lengths and widths is what was intended. We find sufficient evidence in the
disclosure of Hajimiri, including the illustrations in Figures 5A and 6A, to
shift the burden to Appellants to provide evidence, none of which has been
provided, that the illustrated transmission lines could not be of equal length
and width as they are depicted in Figure 5A.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Hajimiri, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as
claims 2-4, 7, and 8 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4,
7, and 8 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 7, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-000226
Application 10/665,993

8
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

babc

Steven Fischman
Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser
400 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530