14609463 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

Ex Parte Ungar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2018

14609463 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/609,463 01/30/2015 81722 7590 09/19/2018 Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - Inf c/o 444 Brickell A venue Suite 51270 Miami, FL 33131 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Franz Ungar 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. P56661US 8850 EXAMINER TRAN,DZUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2018 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 FRANZ UNGAR, GUNTHER LEHMANN, ARMIN FISCHER, ALEXANDER VON GLASOW, and SASCHA SIEGLER Appeal2018-000689 Application 14/609,463 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, DONNA M. PRAISS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Magel,2 claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as 1 Appellant is the applicant, Infineon Technologies AG, which is also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Magel et al., US 5,412,593, issued May 2, 1995. Appeal2018-000689 Application 14/609,463 obvious over Magel, and claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as obvious over Magel in view ofRuss. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. The claims are directed to a fuse (see, e.g., claims 1 and 7). Claim 7 is illustrative: 7. A fuse, comprising: a first fuse link; a second fuse link coupled in series to the first fuse link, wherein each of the first fuse link and the second fuse link are configured to be disconnected from itself or to have an increase in resistance in response to a same single applied programming current pulse that flows through both the first fuse link and the second fuse link, wherein at least one of the first and second fuse links comprises polysilicon. Appeal Br. 18-19 (formatting added). OPINION The Examiner finds Magel teaches a first fuse link (Fig. 11 b, ( 40_1)) and a second fuse link (Fig. 11 b, ( 40_2) coupled in series and each configured to be disconnected (see col. 4, line 55) from itself. Final 3. In the Answer, the Examiner reproduces an annotated Figure 11 b identifying the first and second fuse links as the areas 40 on either side of narrower area 46. Annotated Figure 11 b is reproduced below: 3 Russ et al., US 2009/0206446 Al, published Aug. 20, 2009. 2 Appeal2018-000689 Application 14/609,463 FJC. -< n Annotated Figure 11 b is a top view of the conductive portions of a fuse ( 46) and antifuse (54) series link We agree with Appellant that the regions the Examiner appears to label 40_1 and 40_2 ( arrow labeled 40_) would not be understood to be "fuse links" as recited in claim 7. Appeal Br. 11-13. This misinterpretation resulted in reversible error because Mabel teaches only one fuse link in the Figure 11 b embodiment, not two. In Magel the fuse link is 46, the narrow region within polysilicon 40. See Magel col. 7, 11. 22-26 ("polysilicon 40 ... forms the fuse link 46"). It is the fuse link 46 that disconnects from itself when a high current pulse causes the polysilicon in the fuse link 46 to melt. Magel col. 7, 11. 35-39. That the ordinary artisan would interpret "fuse link" as recited in claim 7 as equivalent to fuse link 46 of Magel is evident from the use of the terms "fuse" and "fuse link" in Appellant's Specification and in Magel. These sources indicate that those of ordinary skill in the art understood a fuse link to be a portion of a fuse that may be selectively disconnected ( e.g. by means of blowing, cutting, rupturing and/or removing material). Spec. ,r,r 4, 31; see also Spec. ,r 54 ( describing in reference to Figure 1 that "at least a portion of the fuse link 102 may be ruptured or broken, e.g,[,] as a 3 Appeal2018-000689 Application 14/609,463 consequence of programming the fuse 100"); Magel col. 1, 11. 20-25 ("Poly- silicon ('poly') fuses are well known" and "are conductive links until a high current pulse is sent through them causing them to melt and form an open circuit"); col. 4, 11. 52---62. Magel's Figure 1 lb depicts only one fuse link 46. It does not depict two fuse links in series. Thus, Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation as to claim 7. To reject claim 1, the other independent claim, the Examiner alternatively relies on Mabel's Figure 8 embodiment. Final 4--5. We reproduce the Examiner's annotated Figure 8 below: Annotated Figure 8 is a circuit diagram of the series connection of parallel sublinks 34 The Examiner finds Mabel's Figure 8 embodiment includes a first fuse link 12_1 and a second fuse link 12_2 coupled in series with a connection element A in between. Final 4. But in the case where the fuse links are configured to be disconnected from themselves, claim 1 requires "wherein each of the first fuse link and the second fuse link are configured to be disconnected from itself ... in response to a same single applied programming current pulse that flows through both the first fuse link and the second fuse link." Claim 1 (emphasis added). 4 Appeal2018-000689 Application 14/609,463 Mabel teaches connecting parallel sublinks 26 so that n sublinks require 2n programming steps. Mabel col. 8, 11. 26-37. Mabel desires to optimize the number of programming steps to 2n, i.e., two times the number of sublinks 26. Thus, Mabel seeks to program the device so that fuse links are not disconnected (blown) at the same time. The Examiner has not established that Mabel teaches configuring the fuse links 12 so that each one disconnects from itself in response to the same single applied programming pulse as required by claim 1. Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner's rejections of the dependent claims, either based on Mabel or Mabel in view of Russ, do not remedy the deficiency. CONCLUSION In summary: 7 Â§ 102(a)(l) Mabel 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 Â§ 103 Mabel 9-16 Â§ 103 Mabel, Russ Summa DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5 7 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 9-16 1, 2, 5-16