Ex Parte Yamashita et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 10, 201412217899 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHUICHI YAMASHITA, MASASHI TOTOKAWA, MASAO NAITOU, TETSUO IMAMURA, KENJI MORIKAWA, and TAKUJI IWANO ____________ Appeal 2011-008605 Application 12/217,899 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008605 Application 12/217,899 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1-6 as anticipated by Arshak et al. (Development of a novel thick-film strain gauge sensor system, 8 MEAS. SCI. TECHNOL. 58-70 (1997)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appellants claim a physical quantity sensor element 1 comprising a strain sensitive resistor 4 wherein "the strain sensitive resistor includes (a) a matrix including a glass and (b) electrically conductive particles [e.g., ruthenium oxide] that are dispersed in the glass, the glass being free of lead and including bismuth" (sole independent claim 1, Fig. 1). A copy of claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A physical quantity sensor element comprising: a strain sensitive resistor that has an electrical resistance value changeable in response to a change of a strain level generated by application of a stress; and an electrically insulating material that is bonded to the strain sensitive resistor, the electrical insulating material having an electrically insulating property, wherein: the strain sensitive resistor includes (a) a matrix including a glass and (b) electrically conductive particles that are dispersed in the glass, the glass being free of lead and including bismuth. We sustain the above rejection for the reasons expressed in the Answer and add the following comments for emphasis. Appeal 2011-008605 Application 12/217,899 3 Appellants concede that the thick film resistor (TFR) of Arshak includes bismuth oxide but argue that Arshak's resistor does not include glass and therefore "Arshak . . . fails to disclose, teach or suggest a matrix of glass including bismuth" (App. Br. 6). In this regard, Appellants complain that "the Examiner has failed to precisely state how Arshak . . . meets [this] aspect/element of Applicants' Claim 1 disclosure" (id. at 8). This complaint is not well founded. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner reiterated the finding that Arshak's thick film resistor (TFR) includes a matrix including a glass and explained that the finding is supported by Arshak's page 67 disclosure concerning glass crystalline and glass fritted characteristics of TFR structures (FOA 3). The Examiner repeats this explanation in the Answer (Ans. 6). Significantly, the Examiner's explanation has not been addressed by Appellants in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. In addition to repeating the above explanation, the Examiner responds to Appellants' argument by relying on the Prudenziati1 reference of record "to show that the inherent nature of all thick film resistors is that they include therein a glass matrix" (id. at 5). In their Reply Brief, Appellants acknowledge the Examiner's reliance on Prudenziati to show that Arshak's thick film resistor inherently includes a 1 Prudenziati et al., Lead-free thick film resistors: an explorative investigation, 13 J. MATERIALS SCI.: MATERIALS IN ELECTRONICS 31-37 (2002). Appeal 2011-008605 Application 12/217,899 4 matrix including a glass (Reply Br. 4). Nevertheless, Appellants argue that the bismuth limitation of claim 1 is not satisfied "because bismuth is not disclosed in the glass of Arshak . . . or Prudenziati" (id.). With respect to Prudenziati specifically, Appellants concede this reference discloses ruthenate in the form of Bi2Ru2O7 but argue that "[r]uthenate . . . [is] not 'bismuth,' as Appellants recite in Claim 1" (id.). In presenting these arguments, Appellants fail to explain why the bismuth limitation of claim 1 is not satisfied by the bismuth oxide concededly disclosed by Arshak (see App. Br. 6) or the Bi2Ru2O7 ruthenate concededly disclosed by Prudenziati (see Reply Br. 4). Regarding this limitation, Appellants state that claim 1 requires "bismuth-based glass" (id.) and that "a bismuth-based glass is believed to not be disclosed [by Arshak or Prudenziati]" (id.). However, Appellants do not embellish these statements with any specific definition of bismuth-based glass or any explanation why claim 1 should be interpreted as limited to bismuth-based glass or why bismuth-based glass distinguishes from Arshak or Prudenziati. Finally, as indicated above, the Reply Brief arguments do not address the Examiner's reliance on page 67 of Arshak. For the reasons given above and in the Answer, Appellants' arguments of record fail to reveal error in the Examiner's finding that the appealed claims are anticipated by Arshak. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. Appeal 2011-008605 Application 12/217,899 5 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation