Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2020006050 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/802,066 07/17/2015 Berthold Astegher 42792-0389 1081
38881 7590 06/28/2021
Infineon Technologies AG
c/o Schiff Hardin LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 3000
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
PLUMB, NIGEL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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):
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BERTHOLD ASTEGHER and HELMUT WIETSCHORKE
____________

Appeal 2020-006050
Application 14/802,066
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Infineon Technologies AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br.
1.
Appeal 2020-006050
Application 14/802,066

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates a system for detecting a physical variable. Spec.
1. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for detecting a physical variable, having the
following features:
a first sensor which is designed to detect a physical
variable on the basis of a first detection principle; and
a second sensor which is designed to detect the physical
variable on the basis of a second detection principle, the first
detection principle differing from the second detection
principle, and the first sensor and the second sensor being
accommodated in a common housing.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 14 recites a method of optically sensing signals using generally
the system features recited in claim 1. Each remaining claim on appeal
depends from claim 1 or 14.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–5, 11, and 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Rasbornig.2
II. Claims 6–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rasbornig and Lin.3
III. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rasbornig and Dawson.4

2 US 2012/0074972 A1, published March 29, 2012.
3 US 2013/0283912 A1, published October 31, 2013.
4 US 2013/0317772 A1, published November 28, 2013.
Appeal 2020-006050
Application 14/802,066

3
OPINION
Rejection I: anticipation
With regard to Rejection I, Appellant presents arguments concerning
claim 1 and does not separately argue any other claim. Appeal Br. 2–4.
Claims 2–17 stand or fall with claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds
Rasbornig describes first and second sensors (202, 204) which are designed
to detect magnetic field on the basis of different detection principles. Final
Act. 5 (citing Rasbornig ¶¶ 16, 23).
Rasbornig describes a system comprising main sensor 102 and
secondary sensor 104, each communicating with a digital signal processor
via distinct signal paths. Rasbornig ¶ 13; Fig. 1. See also id. ¶ 16, Fig. 2
(describing main sensor 202 and secondary sensor 204). “Sensors 202 and
204 . . . can utilized different sensing principles with respect to their
measured values, included processes, technological performance and
specifications, size and/or placement of the sensors 202 and 204 themselves,
and biasing.” Id. ¶ 23. Moreover, the secondary sensor “ and its
corresponding secondary signal path is generally one that, when compared
with main sensor 102, is less accurate, slower and/or noisier; operates using
different working principles; and/or includes additional secondary sensing
tasks.” Id. ¶ 14. As such, the described secondary sensor can provide a
plausibility comparison, fault detection, and verification of the main sensor
and signal path while avoiding the cost associated with conventional systems
that use identical redundant sensors. Id. ¶¶ 4, 15.
Appellant argues Rasbornig fails to describe the recited difference in
detection principle. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2–3. Particularly, Appellant
Appeal 2020-006050
Application 14/802,066

4
argues “Rasbornig's ‘sensing principle’ involves diversity regarding signal
processing, whereas the claimed ‘detection principle’ involves diversity in
sensing principle (i.e., how the sensor detects a quantity of a physical
variable).” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As noted, Rosbornig states
the main and secondary sensors use “different sensing principles with
respect to their measured values.” Id. ¶ 23. Such sensor differences include
technological performance, specifications, and sensor placement. Id.
Relative to the main sensor, Rasbornig’s secondary sensor is less accurate,
slower, noisier, and less expensive. Id. ¶¶ 14, 29. These described physical
distinctions support the Examiner’s finding that Rosbornig’s main and
secondary sensors operate differently to detect magnetic field. Moreover, as
Appellant acknowledges, Appeal Br. 4, Rosbornig also describes different
signal paths corresponding to the main and secondary sensors, including
diverse biasing and diverse techniques for analog-to-digital conversion.
Rosbornig ¶¶ 23, 24. These diverse signal paths are “implemented using
different working principles.” Id. ¶ 20. Thus, both with regard to the
sensors and their corresponding signal paths, Rosbornig describes
differences in how the main and secondary sensors operate to detect a
physical variable, e.g. magnetic field. Appellant does not present persuasive
evidence establishing that the term “detection principle” in claim 1 excludes
either the sensor differences or the signal path differences identified in
Rosbornig.

Appeal 2020-006050
Application 14/802,066

5
Rejections II and III: obviousness
Appellant does not separately argue either Rejection II or III.
Accordingly, these rejections are sustained for the reasons set forth above in
connection with the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 11,
14–17
102(a)(1) Rasbornig 1–5, 11,
14–17

6–8 103 Rasbornig, Lin 6–8
9, 10, 12,
13
103 Rasbornig,
Dawson
9, 10, 12,
13

Overall
outcome
1–17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED