Ex Parte Meisel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12452546 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/452,546 04/07/2010
24972 7590 06/01/2016
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
666 FIFTH A VE
NEW YORK, NY 10103-3198
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Christoph Meisel
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.
10191/6175 9860
EXAMINER
KWOK, HELEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL CHRISTOPH MEISEL and JOERG HAUER
Appeal2014-005119
Application 12/452,5461
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision2 of the
Primary Examiner rejecting claims 12-16 and 19-22. Final Act. 2---6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
OPINION
Appellants' invention "relates to a micromechanical device having at
least one drive frame and at least one vibrator, the vibrator being situated in
a region surrounded by the drive frame; the vibrator being coupled
mechanically to the drive frame." Spec. 1, 11. 2--4.
1 Appellants identify the real party-in-interest as Robert Bosch GmbH.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Final Office Action, mailed February 25, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal2014-005119
Application 12/452,546
Claim 12, reproduced below, is representative of the appealed subject
matter:
12. A micromechanical device comprising:
at least one drive frame adapted to be excited to a flexural
vibration; and
at least one vibrator, the vibrator being situated in a region
surrounded by the drive frame, the vibrator being mechanically
coupled to the drive frame;
wherein the vibrator is rigidly coupled to the drive frame.
Appeal Br., Claims App'x 1.
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14, 16, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Delevoye.3 Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner also
rejected claims 15, 19, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofDelevoye and Chiou,4 as well as claims 12-16 and 19-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chiou and
Delevoye. Id. at 3---6.
In each of these rejections, the Examiner relied on Delevoye to
disclose the recited rigid coupling of the vibrator and the drive frame. Id. at
2, 5. Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that Delevoye discloses a
rigid coupling is harmful error. Appeal Br. 3--4. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that the Examiner committed harmful error.
Appellants and the Examiner disagree about the proper construction
of the claim term "rigid coupling." Appeal Br. 3--4; Answer 3. Appellants
argue that this term is defined in the Specification as limited to couplings
3 Delevoye, WO 2006/037928 Al, published Apr. 13, 2006 (English
translation at Delevoye, U.S. Patent No. 7,637,155 B2, issued Dec. 29,
2009).
4 Chiou, U.S. Patent No. 6,843,127 Bl, issued Jan. 18, 2005.
2
Appeal2014-005119
Application 12/452,546
that are "capable of transferring the vibration amplitude of the [drive] frame
[to the vibrator] 'in an unchanged manner."' Appeal Br. 3 (quoting Spec. 3,
11. 2-3). Meanwhile, the Examiner argues that a "rigid coupling" need not
"avoid any type of springiness." Answer 3. We are persuaded that "rigid
coupling" is to be interpreted as Appellants have argued. An inventor may
define specific terms used to describe an invention, but must do so "with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and must "'set out his
uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to
give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v.
Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Here, the
Specification clearly and deliberately states that a rigid coupling is one in
which "the amplitude of the frame is transferred directly and in an
unchanged manner to the vibrator." Spec. 3, 11. 2-3. This is contrasted in
the Specification with a "springy coupling," in which the amplitudes of the
movements of the drive frame and of the vibrator are different. Id. at 3, 11.
3---6. Accordingly, we interpret "rigid coupling" as a coupling between the
drive frame and the vibrator in which "the amplitude of the frame is
transferred directly and in an unchanged manner to the vibrator." Id. at 3, 11.
2-3.
Even though we adopt Appellants' construction of "rigid coupling,"
we are not persuaded that the Examiner committed harmful error in finding
that Delevoye discloses a rigid coupling. The Examiner identified
Delevoye' s junction beam 6 as the drive frame and Delevoye' s mass 1 as the
vibrator, Final Act. 2, 5, and Appellants do not dispute these findings. The
issue, therefore, is whether the coupling between Delevoye' s junction beam
3
Appeal2014-005119
Application 12/452,546
6 and Delevoye' s mass 1 is "rigid" as that term is defined in Appellants'
Specification. The coupling between mass 1 and junction beam 6 is
attachment beam 7. Delevoye, Fig. 2. Attachment beam 7 is described in
Delevoye as "undergo[ing] practically no deformation." Delevoye, col. 4, 11.
15-16. Appellants offer no explanation of why they believe that the
practically non-deforming attachment beam of Delevoye is flexible enough
to fall outside the scope of a coupling that transfers the amplitude of junction
beam 6 directly and in an unchanged manner to mass 1. Accordingly, we do
not conclude that Appellants have shown harmful error in the Examiner's
finding that Delevoye discloses a rigid coupling.
Appellants' argument that Delevoye' s anchorage beams 4 undergo
deformation and therefore are not rigid is unpersuasive of harmful error on
the part of the Examiner. Appellants' claims require only that the coupling
between the drive frame and the vibrator be rigid, not that the entire drive
frame-vibrator system be rigid. The Examiner did not find that anchorage
beams 4 are part of the coupling between Delevoye' s junction beam 6 and
Delevoye' s mass 1, and Appellants do not explain why the anchorage beams
should be considered to be part of the coupling. Without such an argument
from Appellants, we do not see any error in the Examiner's finding that the
relevant coupling is simply attachment beam 7.
Because Appellants have not shown any harmful error on the part of
the Examiner, we affirm the Examiner's rejections.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claims 12-14, 16, 20, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Delevoye, of claims 15, 19, and 21
4
Appeal2014-005119
Application 12/452,546
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Delevoye and
Chiou, and of claims 12-16 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Chiou and Delevoye 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.
AFFIRMED
5