Ex Parte Yamashita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2014

12217899 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2014)

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