Ex Parte Metivier et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 201813461164 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/461, 164 05/01/2012 22494 7590 11/28/2018 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP SUITE 201B ONE UNIVERSITY A VENUE WESTWOOD, MA 02090 Ryan Metivier 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. ALLEG-319PUS 5596 EXAMINER PATEL, PARESH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2868 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/28/2018 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): docketing@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RY AN METIVIER and WILLIAM P. TAYLOR Appeal2018---003344 Application 13/461, 164 Technology Center 2800 Before: BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15. (Appeal Br. 7.) We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed May 1, 2012 ("Spec."); Non-Final Office Action dated February 7, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated December 4, 2017 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed February 5, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appellants identify ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC., as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2018---003344 Application 13/461,164 THE INVENTION Appellants state that the invention relates to methods and apparatus for sensors having elliptical magnets magnetized to generate substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density. (Spec. 3, 11. 3-5.) Claim 1, as reproduced from the Claims Appendix, is representative ( emphasis added): 1. A system, comprising: a magnet having a length, width, and height, wherein the magnet has a substantially planar surface that defines an ellipse across the length and width to generate substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density in a plane over and parallel to the elliptical planar surface of the magnet, wherein the ellipse is noncircular; and a magnetic sensor IC package comprising: a sensing element disposed a selected distance from the planar surface of the magnet, wherein the planar surface of the magnet and a surface of the magnetic sensor IC package define an airgap with respect to rotation of the magnetic sensor IC package and/or magnet, wherein a center of the sensing element is substantially aligned with a center of the magnet; and a substrate containing circuitry to process a signal from the sensing element to provide an output of the magnetic sensor IC package. (Appeal Br. 39, Claims App.) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. Claims 1-10 as obvious over Kejik et al. (US 8,324,891 B2, issued December 4, 2012) (hereinafter "Kejik") in view of Godoy et al. 2 Appeal2018---003344 Application 13/461,164 (US 2005/0194967 Al, published September 8, 2005) (hereinafter "Godoy"); 2. Claims 11-15 as obvious over Kejik and Godoy; 3. Claims 1-10 as obvious over Schott et al. (US 6,545,462 B2, issued April 8, 2003) (hereinafter "Schott") in view of Godoy; and 4. Claims 11-15 as obvious over Schott and Godoy. (Non-Final Act. 3-11.) DISCUSSION We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, which is sufficient for disposition of this appeal. As emphasized above, claim 1 requires a magnet with a substantially planar surface in the shape of a noncircular ellipse that generates substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density in a plane over and parallel to the elliptical surface of the magnet. We observe also that claim 11, the only other independent claim on appeal, similarly requires the presence of a magnet with a planar surface defining a noncircular ellipse to generate substantially circular concentric zones of substantially similar flux density. (Appeal Br. 40, Claims App.) Among other things, the Examiner found that Kejik and Schott, although disclosing many aspects of the claimed systems, were both silent as to a magnet having a planar surface that defines an ellipse sufficient to generate substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density. (Non-Final Act. 3--4, 6, 8, 10.) The Examiner found that Godoy discloses a magnet having substantially planar surface defining a non-circular ellipse, and thus would generate substantially circular concentric zones of 3 Appeal2018---003344 Application 13/461,164 substantially similar flux density, and concluded that it would have been obvious to use Godoy's magnet in either Kejik or Schott. (Non-Final Act. 4, 6, 8, 10-11 (citing Godoy, Fig. 7 (magnet 22)); see Ans. 2--4, 7-8.) Appellants contend that Godoy does not disclose or suggest generating substantially circular concentric zones of substantially similar flux density as required by the claims, rather, Godoy discloses a preference for strong and weak regions of flux density, the opposite of circular concentric zones of similar flux density. ( Appeal Br. 11-12 ( citing Godoy ,r 24, Fig. 8.)) Appellants argue that the Examiner's theory that the magnets of Godoy, based on elliptical shape alone, would inherently possess the flux density requirement recited in the claims, is not sufficiently supported and ignores the plain teachings of Godoy. (Appeal Br. 12-14, 17-18.) We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or explanation to support a finding that Godoy's magnet, by virtue of its elliptical shape alone, would necessarily result in a magnet having a planar surface in the shape of a non-circular ellipse sufficient to generate substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density as required by the claims. (Ans. 2--4, 7-8.) In this regard, Godoy discloses an elliptical magnet having regions of flux density with varying flux density distribution that are not substantially circular concentric zones. (Godoy, ,r 24, Fig. 8, regions 31, 33, and 34; see Reply Br. 5 (annotated version of Godoy Fig. 8.)) Although the Examiner appears to attribute the flux density distribution in Figure 8 of Godoy to the positioning of the sensing element 24 on the side of the magnet 22 (Ans. 3), the Examiner offers no technical explanation as to why changing the positioning of the magnetic sensing 4 Appeal2018---003344 Application 13/461,164 element would necessarily result in the flux density distribution required by the claims. In addition, while Godoy discloses that the shape of the magnet disclosed therein may be determined for "reducing nonlinearities" in flux density (Godoy ,r 19), Godoy does not disclose adjusting the shape of the magnet to result in substantially circular concentric zones of similar flux density as recited in claim 1. Further, although the Examiner found that the length to width ratio of about 1.5 3 recited in claims 6 and 14 was met in Godoy, because of the use of the qualifier "about" in the claims, the Examiner does not provide sufficient explanation beyond the statement of "see magnet of Godoy" to support the rejection of these claims. (Non-Final Act. 5, 7, 9, 11; Ans. 6.) Thus, we agree with Appellants that Figure 8 of Godoy provides evidence that such a ratio is not met, because of the lack of circular concentric zones of similar flux density depicted therein. (Appeal Br. 8.) As a result, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-15 as obvious over Kejik or Schott in view of Godoy. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. REVERSED 3 The Specification identifies the length to width ratio of 1.5 as optimal for achieving circular concentric zones of similar flux density. (Spec. 10, 11. 4-- 7 .) 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation