Ex Parte Butzmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

12598500 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

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