Ex Parte Metivier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2018

13461164 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2018)

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