Ex Parte van KampenDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 9, 201612433027 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/433,027 0413012009 Robertus Petrus van Kampen 107817 7590 02/11/2016 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Cavendish Kinetics 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 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. 1912.040031 (CK054) 8257 EXAMINER KING, DOUGLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2824 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2016 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): PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com sversteeg@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERTUS PETRUS VAN KAMPEN 1 Appeal2014-004542 Application 12/433,027 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-5, 10, 12-15, and 20 as unpatentable over Facey (WO 2007/066133 Al published June 14, 2007) in view of Bertin et al. (US 2005/0062070 Al published Mar. 24, 2005 (hereinafter "Bertin")). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Cavendish Kinetics, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-004542 Application 12/433,027 Appellant claims a non-volatile memory bitcell comprising a pull-up electrode 304 coupled to a pull-up line PU, a pull-down electrode 306 coupled to a pull-down line PD, a contact electrode 308, and a cantilever electrode 302 directly coupled to a bitline BL that is orthogonal to both the pull-down line and the pull-up line (independent claim 1, Fig. 3; see also independent memory array claim 13 and independent method claim 20). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A non-volatile memory bitcell, comprising: a pull-up electrode coupled to a pull-up line; a pull-down electrode coupled to a pull-down line; a contact electrode disposed adjacent the pull-down electrode; and a cantilever electrode connected to a bi-stable cantilever positioned between the pull-up electrode and the contact electrode, the bi-stable cantilever movable between a position in contact with the contact electrode and a position in contact with the insulating material covering the pull-up electrode, the cantilever electrode directly coupled to a bitline that is orthogonal to both the pull-down line and the pull-up line. Appellant's arguments are not specifically directed to any particular claim (App. Br. 7-9). Therefore, the claims under rejection will stand or fall with representative claim 1. For the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in the rejection of representative claim 1, and the Appeal Brief fails to show harmful error in this rejection. We therefore sustain the above rejection with the following comments added for emphasis and completeness. 2 Appeal2014-004542 Application 12/433,027 The Examiner finds that "Facey fails to disclose that the cantilever electrode is directly coupled to a bit line and instead shows a transistor between the cantilever and the bit line" (Final Action 3). Concerning this deficiency, the Examiner finds that "Bertin shows a transistor (T for example) connected to a contact electrode (bottom electrode of 2120) rather than the cantilever" (id.). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to connect the transistor to the contact electrode of Facey rather than the cantilever since they are both equivalent means of connecting the selection transistor in the series circuit[, wherein] [t]he result would be the cantilever [of Facey] directly connected to the bit line [as claimed]" (id.). Appellant points out that the transistor of Facey prevents excessive current from welding the cantilever electrode to the contact electrode and argues that removing this transistor would allow such undesired welding thereby rendering the memory cell of Facey unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (App. Br. 7-9). The Examiner responds to this argument as follows: The Examiner has not proposed removal of the transistor from the circuit, but has presented evidence (Bertin) showing a different placement for said transistor within the series circuit. Appellant has failed to present evidence supporting Appellant's conclusion that rearranging the series circuit such that the transistor, bit line, cantilever, and contact are in a different order would yield a device that would be subject to the "welding" discussed by Facey. Appellant has simply pointed to the section of Facey which, as mentioned above, discusses prior devices which have no transistor. (Ans. 6.) 3 Appeal2014-004542 Application 12/433,027 Under these circumstances, Appellant's argument directed to removal of Facey's transistor is not germane to the Examiner's rejection and therefore does not reveal error in the rejection. The Appeal Brief contains only one instance in which Appellant expressly addresses the Examiner's proposed move of Facey's transistor. Specifically, Appellant concedes that "[i]f the transistor 12 is moved to the landing electrode side rather than the cantilever side, ... the transistor 12 would no longer be present between the cantilever and the bitline ... (hence, the direct connection between the bitline ... and the cantilever)" (App. Br. 7). Nevertheless, Appellant argues that "doing so would defeat the teaching of Facey because having the transistor 12 between the bitline ... and the cantilever is the focus of the invention of Facey" (id.). Appellant does not explain why moving the transistor as proposed by the Examiner "would defeat the teaching of Facey" (id.) so as to militate against the Examiner's conclusion that the proposed move would have been obvious. In this regard, Appellant may be correct in stating that "having the transistor 12 between the bitline ... and the cantilever is the focus of the invention of Facey" (id.). However, this statement is little more than an agreement with the Examiner's finding that the invention of Facey differs from the invention of claim 1. By itself, the statement is insufficient to show error in the conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify Facey in such a way that the resulting memory cell would be identical to the bitcell of claim 1. For these reasons, we find no convincing merit in Appellant's only argument in the Appeal Brief specifically directed to the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness regarding the proposed move of Facey' s transistor. 4 Appeal2014-004542 Application 12/433,027 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the proposed move would result in welding the cantilever to the contact electrode (or the pull-up electrode) because the current through the cantilever would be uncontrolled due to the way in which a transistor would operate if connected to Facey's contact electrode as proposed (Reply Br. 2-3). These arguments could have been but were not raised in the Appeal Brief. For this reason, and because Appellant has not shown good cause for the untimeliness of the Reply Brief arguments, these arguments will not be considered for purposes of the present appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). In summary, we sustain the § 103 rejection of representative claim 1 and concomitantly remaining claims 2-5, 10, 12-15, and 20. The decision of the Examiner 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation