Ex Parte Günthner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14355428 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/355,428 04/30/2014
40878 7590 09/19/2018
EGL/Continental Teves Inc.
C/0 BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
524 South Main Street
Suite 200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Gtinthner
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.
14423-127 7820
EXAMINER
DO,ANDREWV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP AN GUNTHNER
and BERNHARD SCHMID
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY R. SNAY,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 5-10, 14, and 18 of
Application 14/355,428 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Final Act. (Aug.
12, 2016) 2-5. Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1 The Applicant, Continental Teves AG & Co. oHG, is identified as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a micromechanical
element having a plurality of individual sensor elements. Abstract.
Claims 1 and 6 are reproduced below:
1. A single micromechanical element comprising:
first and second individual sensor elements;
wherein the first physical measurement variable can be
measured with the first individual sensor element and a second
physical measurement variable can be measured with the
second individual sensor element;
wherein the first individual sensor element is arranged in
a first region of the single micromechanical element, and the
second individual sensor element is arranged in a second region
of the single micromechanical element, wherein the first region
and the second region are separated from one another
hermetically;
wherein the first individual sensor element is an
acceleration sensor and the second sensor element is an angular
rate sensor.
6. A component for measuring at least two physical
measurement variables comprising;
a single micromechanical element having first and
second individual sensor elements, wherein a first physical
measurement variable can be measured with the first individual
sensor element and the second physical measurement variable
can be measured with the second individual sensor element;
at least one control electronics unit adapted to be
connected electrically to the single micromechanical element;
wherein the first individual sensor element is arranged in
a first region of the single micromechanical element, and the
second individual sensor element is arranged in a second region
of the single micromechanical element, wherein the first region
and the second region are separated from one another
hermetically;
2
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
wherein the first individual sensor element is an
acceleration sensor and the second sensor element is an angular
rate sensor; and
wherein the single micromechanical element and the
control electronics unit are arranged in a common housing.
Appeal Br. 14--15 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) (pre-
AIA) as anticipated by Schmid et al. 2 Final Act. 2--4.
2. Claims 5, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-
AIA) as obvious over Schmid in view of Rettig et al. 3 Id. at 4--5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner relied primarily on Figure 8 of Schmid in
finding claims 1 and 6-10 anticipated. Id. at 2--4. Figure 8 is reproduced
below.
Fig.8
Figure 8 of Schmid is a schematic view of an assembly containing separately
housed, dual-axis rotation rate sensors 421 and three-axis acceleration
2 US 2012/0017676 Al, published Jan. 26, 2012.
3 US 2011/0048132 Al, published Mar. 3, 2011.
3
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
sensors 744. Schmid ,r,r 42, 68. The sensors are "combined in" integrated
circuits 440 and 750, respectively. In an Advisory Action, the Examiner
rejected Appellant's argument that Schmid does not teach a
micromechanical element and determined that "[a] micromechanical
element, as claimed and as disclosed, is being interpre[ t Jed as an element
which includes micromechanical sensors. This is believed to be a
reasonable interpretation of the term 'micromechanical element."' Advisory
Action (Sept. 27, 2016).
Appellant argues that such construction is in error. Appeal Br. 7-11.
First, Appellant asserts that a micromechanical element is "sometimes
referred to as a MEMS device or MEMS element." Id. at 9. Appellant
further asserts that MEMS "is the name for a micro fabrication technology
that embeds mechanical devices such as fluid sensors, mirrors, actuators,
pressure and temperature sensors, vibration sensors or valves in
semiconductor chips." Id. Appellant concludes that one skilled in the art
would interpret "micromechanical element" to be a device that utilizes a
micro fabrication technology that embeds mechanical devices in
semiconductor chips. Id. at 7, 11. Appellant offers an exhibit in support of
its construction. 4
Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner's proposed
construction is "illogical." Id. at 10. Appellant argues that the Examiner's
determination that "the entire sensor device 7 40 of Schmid would be
considered to be the single micromechanical element" requires that
microprocessor 746 be part of the micromechanical element. Claim 6,
4 Ex. 1, An Introduction to MEMS, Wolfson School of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering (2002), Pages 1-3.
4
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
however, requires "at least one control electronics unit adapted to be
connected electrically to the single micromechanical element." Id. at 15
(Claims App.). Thus, Appellant concludes, the "micromechanical element"
should not be construed to include a control electronics unit. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that this supports its contention that "one skilled in the art
would interpret 'micromechanical element' to be a device that utilizes a
micro fabrication technology that embeds mechanical devices in
semiconductor chips." Id. at 11.
We do not adopt Appellant's proposed construction. Appellant does
not point to any support for its proposed construction in the Specification,
nor do we find any. Nor does Appellant clearly state what it regards as a
"micro fabrication" technology nor how that would differentiate the claims
from the cited teachings of Schmid.
Appellant subsequently argues that Schmid does not anticipate the
claims because "Schmid utilizes separate micromechanical elements that are
separately wire-bonded to a printed circuit board. Schmid does not utilize a
single micromechanical element that has first and second individual sensor
elements arranged in first and second regions of a single micromechanical
element, respectively, separated from one another hermetically." Id. at 12.
Here, Appellant's allegation of error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection does not depend upon its proposed construction of the term
"micromechanical element" in any clear manner. Rather, the point raised by
the foregoing argument is whether Schmid teaches a single micromechanical
element with two sensors (as determined by the Examiner) or two separate
mechanical elements (as urged by the Appellant). Apart from the foregoing,
Appellant has not offered argument or analysis relevant to the resolution of
such question. To the extent Appellant argues that the term
5
Appeal2017-009624
Application 14/355,428
"micromechanical element" requires use of microfabrication technology and
the Examiner has not shown that the device of Schmid is so made (beyond
the finding in the Advisory Action) such argument is unpersuasive as we
have not adopted Appellant's proposed construction.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
determination in this regard.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 18 as
obvious over Schmid in view of Rettig. Final Act. 4--5. Appellant argues
that these claims were rejected in error for the same reasons as set forth with
regard to claims 1 and 6-10, above. As we have found such arguments
unpersuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error in the
rejection of claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 18.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 5-10, 14 and 18 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).
AFFIRMED
6