Ex Parte ButzmannDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201812598500 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/598,500 05/17/2010 65913 7590 10/01/2018 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stefan Butzmann 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. 00 8286 USl 1790 EXAMINER SCHINDLER, DAVID M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2858 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2018 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEP AN BUTZMANN Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and MERRILL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 14--21. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant's invention is directed to a sensor, method and non- transitory computer readable media for measuring an angle of an external magnetic field (Spec. 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A sensor configured to measure an angle of an external magnetic field, the sensor comprising: a first half-bridge comprising a first magnetoresistive resistor and a second magnetoresistive resistor; a second half-bridge comprising a third magnetoresistive resistor and a fourth magnetoresistive resistor; and a modulation unit configured to modulate the external magnetic field with an Alternating Current (AC) field in a continuous manner and generate a magnetic modulation field with both a sine signal and a cosine signal, wherein the external magnetic field is superposed by a rotating magnetic field vector. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 8, 9, 11 and 17-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claims 1-9, 11, and 14--21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2, as failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. 1 Appellant does not identify a real party in interest. See generally App. Br. We note, however, that Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc. is listed as the assignee in the official records. 2 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 3. Claims 1-7, 11 and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements. 4. Claims 8, 9, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2, as failing to recite essential steps. 5. Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 14, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard (US 5,850,624; Dec. 15, 1998) in view of Cohen (US 3,771,044; Nov. 6, 1973) and Griffen (US 5,680,042; Oct. 21, 1997) or Sasagawa (US 2005/0016006 Al; Jan. 27, 2005). 6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen, and Griffen or Sasagawa in further view of Sudo (US 7,265,540 B2; Sept.4, 2007). 7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen, or Sasagawa and in further view of Waffenschmidt (US 6,943,544 B2; Sept.13, 2005). 8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen and Khalfin (US 2003/0201767 Al; Oct. 30, 2003). 9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Sasagawa and Khalfin. 10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen, or Sasagawa in further view of Faymon (US 2003/0231013 Al; Dec. 18, 2003). 3 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen, or Sasagawa in further view of In (US 7,528,606 Bl; May 5, 2009). 12. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen, or Sasagawa in further view of Sugitani (US 6,566,872 B 1; May 20, 2003). 13. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gard in view of Cohen and Griffen, and further in view of Sasagawa or Lee (US 5,241,268; Aug. 31, 1993). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Rejection (1): Written Description The Examiner finds that claims 8 and 11 lack written descriptive support because the claims include two modulations without providing sufficient disclosure as to how applicant performs two distinct modulations with distinct elements (Final Act. 13-14). Appellant argues that the Examiner unreasonably construes the claim language to include two modulation steps (App. Br. 4). Appellant contends that the Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the language of the claims and the Specification (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues that claims 8 and 11 each require a combination of steps of modulating and exciting, but not two modulating steps (App. Br. 5). Appellant contends that page 9 and page 10 of the Specification support the claimed modulation step and an exciting step caused using the switches (App. Br. 4). Appellant further contends that page 10 of the Specification discloses superposing a rotating 4 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 magnetic field vector on the external magnetic field to constantly modulate the integrated excitation coils with sine- and cosine signals (App. Br. 4). In addressing written description, the question to be answered is whether the disclosure of the application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant's argument of written descriptive support. The Specification at page 9 and 10 supports that Appellant possessed using an AC-magnetic field to modulate the magnetic field and exciting the coils to constantly modulate a sine and cosine signal to produce a magnetic field. Based on this finding, we reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection for lack of written description. Rejections (2) to (4): 35 USC§ 112, f 2 With regard to independent claims 1, 8, and 11, the Examiner finds that the claims are indefinite because the claims recite an "Alternating Current (AC) field," "a magnetic modulation field" and "a rotating magnetic field vector" distinctly from one another (Final Act. 15-16). The Examiner finds that recitation of the three fields renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the relationship between the three fields is (Final Act. 16). Appellant argues that Figure 3A shows that the external magnetic field is modulated in the x-direction and y-direction using an AC field (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends that the rotating magnetic field vector is a component of a field rather than a separate field as the Examiner contends (App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that the coils 105/106 create a magnetic field 5 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 in both the x and y directions which clearly recites modulating the external magnetic field in two directions. Id. The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant's argument of definiteness. Claim 1 recites a sensor having a modulation unit configured to modulate the external magnetic field with an alternating current field in a continuous manner and generate a magnetic modulation field with both a sine signal and cosine signal. Claim 8 recites steps of modulating the external magnetic field in two directions with an Alternating Current (AC) field in a sensor and exciting a first coil and a second coil in a continuous manner to generate a magnetic modulation field. Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that causes a processor to modulate an AC magnetic field in two directions in a sensor and excite a modulation unit comprising a first coil and a second coil in a continuous manner for generation of a magnetic modulation field. Appellant contends that all the fields are related and cannot be considered distinct (Reply Br. 4). To support this position Appellant relies on Figure 7 A which shows the magnetic fields 703/704 produced by coils 105/106 when excited by sine/cosine currents and Figures 3A and 3B which show the AC field modulated in the x-direction and y-direction (Reply Br. 4). Indeed, page 9 of the Specification discloses that evaluation of the magnetic field angle may be achieved by exciting the coils with an AC-magnetic field. The Specification at page 10 further discloses that a magnetic field is generated by coils 105 and 106. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim as read in light of the Specification as requiring an AC field to generate the magnetic field that is used to form the rotating magnetic field vector. 6 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 Claim 9 is a method claim and is reciting the additional limitation that the coils generate the magnetic field in the x and y direction. With regard to claim 9, the Examiner finds that it is unclear what is generating the magnetic modulation field in the x and y directions (Final Act. 20). The Specification, however, is clear that the coils generate the magnetic field in the x and y directions (Spec. 9). Claim 16 provides the additional limitation that a first and second voltage-to-current converter is configured to excite the first and second coils. With regard to claim 16, the Examiner finds that the limitation that requires exciting a first or second coil using a first or second voltage-to-current converter is indefinite because the difference between the recited exciting the first and second coil and the sine and cosine signals is not clear (Final Act. 24). However, the Examiner has not adequately established that claim 16 presents a 112, ,r 2 issue. With regard to claim 17, the Examiner finds that the recitation of a Wheatstone bridge renders the claim indefinite because its relationship to the two half-bridges in claim 8 is unclear (Final Act. 24). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown any ambiguity in the claim limitations that require measuring resulting AC amplitudes at an output of a Wheatstone bridge (App. Br. 8). The Examiner finds that the additional recited step of measuring the output from a Wheatstone bridge is confusing because Appellant does not disclose using four half bridges (i.e., the two half bridges in claim 8 and two half bridges that compose the Wheatstone bridge) (Final Act. 25). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that claim 1 7 recites that the two half bridges in claim 8 are 7 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 configured as a magnetoresistive Wheatstone bridge (Spec. 2). In other words, the claim read in light of the Specification would have made clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the two half bridges are configured as a Wheatstone bridge. Regarding rejection (3), the Examiner determines that claims 1 and 11 lack required structural cooperative relationships which amount to a gap between these elements (App. Br. 27). The Examiner finds that the claim is missing a recited structural relationship between the claim limitations. Id. Regarding rejection (4), the Examiner determines that claim 8 is missing essential steps such that the omitted steps render the claims indefinite (App. Br. 32). The Examiner finds that method steps that include modulating and exciting are missing a recited relationship with each other. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the missing structure or steps are essential to the claimed invention (App. Br. 9). Appellant contends that the Examiner has misconstrued the claims by reading the claims as requiring a rotating magnetic field rather than a rotating magnetic field vector (App. Br. 9). The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellant's argument of compliance with 35 USC§ 112, ,r 2. The court in In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003 (CCPA 1968), affirmed the Examiner's 35 USC§ 112, ,r 2 rejections as lacking essential structure because the claims included language regarding "things which may be done [but] are not required to be done." Collier at 1006. The claims involved a connector in which a ferrule or connector member is "crimpable but not required, structurally, to be crimped" and "the ground wire ... [which] is not required to be disposed anywhere; it becomes 8 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 displaced when the ferrule is crimped but that may never be, so far as the language of [the] claim ... is concerned." J d. In the present case, claims 1, 8, and 11 do not involve a step or structure that is recited in terms of a capability that may occur. Claim 1 recites a sensor having a first half-bridge and a second half-bridge and a "modulation unit." Claim 8 recites a method of modulating the external magnetic field that includes exciting a first and second coil. The Specification describes the arrangement of these parts and steps relative to one another such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what is being claimed when the claim is read in light of the Specification. The claims may be broad, but the breadth is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). We reverse the Examiner's § 112, ,r 2 rejections. Rejections (5) to (13): Obviousness Appellant's arguments focus on the subject matter common to independent claims 1, 8, and 11 (App. Br. 11-13). The rejections of the dependent claims will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejections of the independent claims. The Examiner finds that Gard teaches a sensor configured to measure an angle of an external magnetic field as recited in claim 1, except for the modulation unit configured to modulate the external magnetic field with an AC field in a continuous manner and generate a magnetic modulation field with both a sine and cosine signal, the external magnetic field is superposed by a rotating magnetic field vector with the modulation unit including a first 9 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 and second coils (Final Act. 39). The Examiner finds that Cohen teaches a sensor that uses an AC field in a continuous manner and generates a magnetic modulation field with both a sine and cosine signal (Final Act. 39). The Examiner finds that Cohen further teaches to generate a rotating magnetic field vector. Id. The Examiner finds that Cohen teaches a frequency doubling magnetoresistive device that doubles the output frequency of the sensor (Final Act. 41 ). The Examiner finds that Griffen teaches frequency doubling magnetoresistive sensors achieve higher resolution without having to increase the manufacturing accuracy of the object generating the magnetic field (Final Act. 40). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Gard to include a modulation unit configured to modulate the magnetic field as recited in the claim as taught by Cohen and Griffen in order to create a frequency doubling magnetoresistive device that advantageously doubles the frequency output of the sensor (Final Act. 41--42). With respect to claims 1 and 8, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided articulated reasoning to support the obviousness rejections (App. Br. 11 ). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that Cohen's teaching regarding frequency doubling are applicable to or would have been desirable for Gard's electronic compass (App. Br. 12). With regard to claim 11, Appellant argues that Gard's magnetic compass already compensates for magnetic dip and there would be no need to apply Sasagawa's teachings to Gard (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that Cohen, Sasagawa and the other applied references do not superpose an external magnetic field by a rotating magnetic field vector as recited in the claims (App. Br. 13). 10 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 Contrary to Appellant's argument, the Examiner provides a reasoned analysis on pages 23 to 29 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Cohen's teaching are applicable to magnetoresistive devices and are not limited solely to electronic compasses. The Examiner finds that Cohen's teachings regarding frequency doubling to provide higher resolution are applicable to Gard's magnetoresistive device (Ans. 26). The Examiner further finds that Sasagawa's teachings provide an improved and simpler system to combat magnetic dip would have provided a reason for the substitution (Ans. 27). Although Appellant contends that Cohen is non-analogous art, Appellant has not shown that Cohen is in a different field of endeavor or not reasonable pertinent to Appellant's problem (Reply Br. 8). In contrast, the Examiner's analysis in the Answer explains why the combination would have been made based upon Cohen's frequency doubling to provide higher resolution. Appellant does not specifically dispute that finding. Regarding Sasagawa, the Examiner finds that Sasagawa provides a simpler and improved system for addressing magnetic dip (Ans. 27-28). Although Appellant contends that Gard already addresses magnetic dip and the Examiner's rationale on providing a simpler system lacks support, the arguments do not explain why or how Gard's teachings detract from Sasagawa's teaching, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 27), that the system is simpler and reduces manufacturing costs (Sasagawa ,r 12). Thus, Appellant has not adequately pointed to error in the Examiner's findings. Appellant contends that the combination of prior art references fails to teach superposing an external magnetic field by a rotating magnetic field vector in the claimed manner (Reply Br. 9). Appellant does not contest or 11 Appeal2017-000926 Application 12/598,500 otherwise show reversible error with the Examiner's analysis on pages 28 to 29. On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of record. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11, and 14--21 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation