SiTime Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 10, 2021

2020006128 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/702,717 09/12/2017 Paul M. Hagelin SA1045-US / 2019064 1051
83241 7590 08/10/2021
Schuyler - SiTime
P.O.Box 2535
Saratoga, CA 95070
EXAMINER
HOPKINS, BRANDI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2021 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 PAUL M. HAGELIN, CHARLES I. GROSJEAN, and
LEV GONCHAROV
____________________

Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is SiTime Corporation. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 12,
2017, Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 30, 2019, the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed March 26, 2020, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed July 20, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 25,
2020.
Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a “frequency-modulating sensor array” that
includes “[s]patially-distributed resonant MEMS sensors . . . coordinated to
generate frequency-modulated signals indicative of regional contact forces,
ambient conditions and/or environmental composition.” (Spec. Title
(capitalization altered); Abstr.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A sensing apparatus comprising:
a first surface;
a plurality of resonant MEMS devices each disposed in
physical contact with a respective region of the first surface and
having a mechanical resonance frequency that varies according
to deflection of the first surface in the respective region of
physical contact; and
readout circuitry to obtain, within a first time interval,
information indicative of the respective mechanical resonance
frequencies of the plurality of resonant MEMS devices sufficient
to identify a locus and amplitude of a force applied to the first
surface.

(Appeal Br. 12–16 (Claims App.).)

REJECTION3 & REFERENCES
Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Gossner (US 2015/0053023 A1, published Feb. 26, 2015)
(“Gossner”). (Final Act. 7–10.)

3 Claims 1–21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite
and incomplete for omitting essential elements. (Final Act. 6–7.) However,
this rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and is no longer
pending on appeal. (Ans. 3.)
Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner, among other things, finds Gossner discloses “a
plurality of resonant MEMS devices [in a sensing apparatus] each . . . having
a mechanical resonance frequency that varies according to deflection of the
first surface in the respective region of physical contact,” and “readout
circuitry . . . to obtain . . . information indicative of the respective
mechanical resonance frequencies of the plurality of resonant MEMS
devices,” as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 5–8.) In particular, the
Examiner reasons that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the
claimed “resonant MEMS devices each disposed in physical contact with a
respective region of the first surface” include “a plurality sensing elements
that sit on a surface of substrate and . . . carry out certain functions.”
(Ans. 4, 7; see also Final Act. 3.) The Examiner then finds that under this
interpretation, Gossner’s sensing capacitors disclose the claimed resonant
MEMS devices. (Ans. 6–7 (citing Gossner ¶¶ 18, 66, Figs. 1, 3, 10a
(showing sensing capacitors 3 and 15)); Final Act. 3–5, 8 (citing Gossner
¶¶ 67–69, 72, 76).) The Examiner further reasons that under a broadest
reasonable interpretation, the claimed MEMS devices having “a mechanical
resonance frequency that varies according to deflection” to indicate “a locus
and amplitude of a[n applied] force” include
devices . . . largely made up of simple mechanical structures that
vibrate in response to some actuation or force.
Accordingly[] Gossner’s printed circuit board (PBC) and
sensing capacitors have comparable oscillating properties
characteristics (i.e., to move or swing back and forth at a regular
speed), in which those structures vibrate in response to some
actuation or force.
. . .
Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
4
[Gossner’s] Fig. 11c illustrates a first and second resulting
waveform of a test of the apparatus . . . [in which] the input
impedance of a charge amplifier may pick up the 50 Hz or
60 Hz (I.e. Hertz (abbreviated: Hz) is the standard unit of
measurement used for measuring frequency).
(Ans. 5–7 (citing Gossner Fig. 11c); see also Final Act. 4–5, 8 (citing
Gossner ¶¶ 69, 76, Abstr.).)
Having reviewed the evidence, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Gossner discloses the claimed “plurality of resonant MEMS
devices each . . . having a mechanical resonance frequency that varies
according to deflection of the first surface” such that “the respective
mechanical resonance frequencies of the plurality of resonant MEMS
devices” indicate “a locus and amplitude of a force applied to the first
surface.” Rather, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation
of the claimed “resonant MEMS devices each . . . having a mechanical
resonance frequency” is unreasonably broad. (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br.
2.) The broadest reasonable interpretation of resonant MEMS devices does
not encompass Gossner’s sensing capacitors. (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br.
2; see Gossner ¶¶ 66–69, 76.) Gossner’s sensing capacitor contains “two
conductors and [a] dielectric” and produces “a signal . . . indicative of a
change of charge of the sensing capacitor” (i.e., indicative of a change in
capacitance). (See Gossner ¶¶ 9, 34, 66; see also Gossner ¶¶ 10–12, 20–22,
71–72, 76.) Gossner’s sensing capacitor is not a resonant MEMS device—
which is a “device[] . . . having a mechanical resonance frequency that
varies according to deflection of the first surface in the respective region of
physical contact [of the device],” as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9–11;
Reply Br. 2.) As Appellant explains:
Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
5
capacitive sensing is based on sensing an amount of charge on a
capacitor (i.e., not measurement of any type of vibration or
resonance frequency as claimed by Applicant). . . .
. . . [the rejection is] trying to define “resonant MEMS
devices” as any type of sensing element, i.e., by thereby trying to
read the language “resonant,” “MEMS” and “frequency”
completely out of the claims, . . . by completely and absolutely
disregarding the [claim] language “having a mechanical
resonance frequency that varies according to deflection of the
first surface in the respective region of physical contact” (i.e.,
capacitors do not perform in this manner, and no element in
Gossner performs in this manner), and . . . by completely and
absolutely disregarding the [claim] language “information
indicative of the respective mechanical resonance frequencies of
the plurality of resonant MEMS devices sufficient to identify a
locus and amplitude of a force applied to the first surface.”
(Appeal Br. 10–11.)
We are also unpersuaded by the Examiner’s attempts to correlate the
claimed mechanical resonance frequencies that vary according to a
deflection of a contacted surface, to the waveform in Gossner’s Figure 11c
and to the “50 Hz or 60 Hz [signals]” referenced by Gossner. (See Ans. 6–7
(citing Gossner ¶ 18, Fig. 11c).) These details in Gossner do not disclose the
claimed analysis of “mechanical resonance frequencies of the plurality of
resonant MEMS devices.” (Reply Br. 2–3.) Gossner’s Figure 11c merely
illustrates a change in capacitor charge reflecting displacement of the
capacitor’s PCB (printed circuit board) (see Gossner ¶¶ 86–87); and
Gossner’s reference to “Hz” concerns an interference that is produced by
“50 Hz or 60 Hz signals from the mains,” absent “good shielding” of the
system’s charge amplifier (see id. ¶ 18).
We further acknowledge the Examiner’s reference to Gossner’s
paragraph 3, which mentions “MEMS sensors.” (Ans. 5 (citing Gossner
¶ 3).) However, the generic reference to MEMS in Gossner’s paragraph 3
Appeal 2020-006128
Application 15/702,717
6
(and paragraphs 5 and 8) is insufficient to anticipate claim 1. In an
anticipation rejection, “[t]he identical invention must be shown in as
complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Such is not shown in
Gossner’s paragraphs 3, 5, and 8.
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
anticipation rejection of claim 1, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 11 and 21 reciting limitations similar to (and rejected for
the same reasons as) claim 1. We additionally do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 2–10 and 12–20 depending from one of
claims 1 and 11.
DECISION SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
is REVERSED.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 102(a)(1) Gossner 1–21

REVERSED