Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2021000247 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
15/160,244 05/20/2016 Juergen Zimmer INFAP442USA 7636
51092 7590 09/17/2021
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
SCHINDLER, DAVID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUERGEN ZIMMER and WOLFGANG RABERG
____________

Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant1 seeks our review of the
Examiner’s final rejection claims 1–4, 7, and 9.2
We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon
Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellant does not, however, challenge the Examiner’s rejections of claims
6, 11, and 12. Final Act. 6–7, 11–15. We summarily affirm those rejections
infra.
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to magnetoresistive sensors.
Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1 is illustrative, is copied from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, and appears below (with the key limitation
italicized):
1. A magnetoresistive sensor element sensitive to a magnetic
field strength, the sensor element comprising:
a magnetoresistive strip comprising a plurality of serial
segments, wherein each segment of the plurality of serial
segments is straight, has an associated shape anisotropy axis of a
plurality of shape anisotropy axes, and has an associated tilt
angle of a plurality of tilt angles that is associated with, in the
presence of a rotating magnetic field, an associated discontinuity
of a plurality of discontinuities at an associated magnetic field
angle of a plurality of magnetic field angles at which edge
magnetization switching occurs, wherein, for each segment, the
associated tilt angle of that segment is an angle between the
associated shape anisotropy axis of that segment and a second
axis, wherein the associated shape anisotropy axis is collinear
with that segment, wherein the second axis is in a plane defined
by a pinned layer of the magnetoresistive strip, and wherein the
second axis is perpendicular to a reference magnetization of the
pinned layer,
wherein a first plurality of the plurality of serial segments
form a first substrip and a second plurality of the plurality of
serial segments form a second substrip, the first and second
substrips being connected by connectors, wherein each
associated tilt angle of the first substrip has a magnitude that is
different from a magnitude of each associated tilt angle of the
second substrip,
wherein the plurality of serial segments comprises at least
a first segment and a second segment adjacent to the first
segment, wherein the first segment directly contacts the second
segment at an angle, wherein the first segment has an associated
shape anisotropy axis of the plurality of shape anisotropy axes
equal to a first shape anisotropy axis and an associated tilt angle
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
3
of the plurality of tilt angles equal to a first tilt angle throughout
its length, wherein the second segment has an associated shape
anisotropy axis of the plurality of shape anisotropy axes equal to
a second shape anisotropy axis and an associated tilt angle of the
plurality of tilt angles equal to a second tilt angle throughout its
length, wherein the first shape anisotropy axis is different from
the second shape anisotropy axis, and wherein the first tilt angle
is different from the second tilt angle,
wherein the first segment has an associated discontinuity
of the plurality of discontinuities equal to a first discontinuity at
an associated magnetic field angle of the plurality of magnetic
field angles equal to a first magnetic field angle, wherein the
second segment has an associated discontinuity of the plurality
of discontinuities equal to a second discontinuity at an associated
magnetic field angle of the plurality of associated magnetic field
angles equal to a second magnetic field angle, and wherein the
first magnetic field angle is distinct from the second magnetic
field angle.
Appellant’s Figure 4, reproduced below, is illustrative:

Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
4
Figure 4 depicts an embodiment of magnetoresistive strip 200 having
a plurality of serial segments 200a–200n, each having varying lengths and
tilt angles. Spec. ¶ 36. “[F]or each segment, the associated tilt angle of that
segment is an angle between the associated shape anisotropy axis of that
segment and a second axis.” Claim 1. The “associated shape anisotropy
axis is collinear with that segment,” and “the second axis is in a plane
defined by a pinned layer of the magnetoresistive strip, and . . . is
perpendicular to a reference magnetization of the pinned layer.” Id.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
I. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph as failing to comply
with the written description requirement;
II. Claims 1 and 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Okada3;
III. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Barton4;
IV. Claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Okada in view of Barton;
V. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okada in view
of Ando5;
VI. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okada;

3 US 2009/0189601 A1, published July 30, 2009.
4 US 2008/0191694 A1, published August 14, 2008.
5 US 2008/0054888 A1, published March 6, 2008.
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
5
VII. Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okada in view
of Shimano6; and
VIII. Claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Okada
in view of Kataoka7.
OPINION
Rejections I, III, and V 8
Because Appellant fails to challenge these rejections, we summarily
sustain each of them. Appeal Br. 4–8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“Each
ground of rejection contested by appellant must be argued under a separate
heading, and each heading shall reasonably identify the ground of rejection
being contested (e.g., by claim number, statutory basis, and applied
reference, if any)).
Rejections II, IV, and VI–VIII
The dispositive issue with respect to these rejections is whether the
Examiner applied an unreasonably broad interpretation to the claim
limitation “the second axis is in a plane defined by a pinned layer of the
magnetoresistive strip,” as recited in independent claim 1. Because we
determine that the Examiner applied an unreasonably broad construction, we
reverse these rejections.
Relevant to this appeal, the Examiner finds that Okada discloses, inter
alia, a sensor element with a plurality of segments having the claimed

6 US 6,222,361 B1, issued April 24, 2001.
7 US 3,691,502, issued September 12, 1972.
8 Although Appellant identifies reversible error with respect to claim 1 from
which claim 6 depends, we are constrained to affirm Rejection V because
Appellant does not challenge it.
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
6
angular relationship vis-à-vis a reference magnetization of the pinned layer,
i.e., each segment is at “an angle between the associated shape anisotropy
axis of that segment [collinear with the segment] and a second axis” which
“is in a plane defined by a pinned layer of the magnetoresistive strip.” Final
Act. 8–10. Specifically, the Examiner maps the claimed magnetoresistive
strip to elements 311c and 311d, and finds that Okada’s second axis for
subsegment 311c is defined by the arrow oriented in the Y-axis in annotated
Okada Figure 28, while the second axis for subsegment 311d “is into the
page.”9 Id. at 8–9; see also Ans. 8–9 (“the second axis going into the page
and through the device (311d) is a Z-axis of the same coordinate system”).
The Examiner’s annotated Figure 28 of Okada is reproduced below:

9 We observe that this interpretation regarding Okada’s element 311d is “a
new interpretation of Okada” based on previous arguments made by
Appellant. Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
7
Annotated Okada Figure 28 illustrates a bridge circuit having devices 311c
and 311d––each with a plurality of segments in a 90° relationship to
connected segments therein––with devices 311c and 311d in an angular
relationship to one another, and an arrow pointed in the direction of the Y
axis. Final Act. 8; Okada ¶ 99, Figure 28.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s mapping of Okada’s circuit fails
to evince that the second axis for subsegment 311d is “in a plane defined by
a pinned layer of the magnetoresistive strip” as required by claim 1. Appeal
Br. 5. Rather, according to Appellant, Okada’s second axis would go
through a plane defined by the pinned layers, but would not be in the plane
as claimed. Id.
The Examiner responds with an analogy of putting a pencil through a
sheet of paper, and asserts that “[w]hile the pencil may be perpendicular to
the plane of the paper, the pencil nevertheless exists in the plane of the paper
for the part of the pencil that is in the paper.” Ans. 12 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determines that “Appellant is not claiming that the second
axis must be parallel to, or along, or even entirely located in the plane,” but
is rather “only reciting that the second axis be ‘in’ the plane.” Id. The
Examiner reasons that “a second axis that is perpendicular to the plane but
still goes through the plane is reasonably in the plane for at least the part of
the axis that must exist where [it] passes through the plane.” Id. (emphasis
added).
Appellant argues in response that “a single point along an axis does
not constitute the axis and thus the axis is not in the plane.” Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. During examination,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
8
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Examiner’s
construction of “the second axis is in a plane”––which allows for only one
point along an axis to be in a plane––is unreasonable. The Examiner has not
pointed to sufficient disclosure in the specification that evinces that the
skilled artisan would have understood such a broad interpretation, and we
see none.
Although the application does not appear to define “the second axis is
in a plane,” the relied-upon prior art is informative because it reflects how
the person of ordinary skill would have understood the term “axis” and the
limitation “in a plane.” For example, Okada depicts several axes in Figures
3, 11, and 12 each of which are fixed reference lines. See Okada, Fig. 3,
¶ 66 (“Any direction is expressed by an angle from the reference axis.”),
Figs. 11, 12 (depicting “axis 202 parallel to the magnetization directions of
pinned layers” and “axis 204 perpendicular to the axis 202,” respectively
(¶ 75)), Fig. 27 (where “a dotted line represents a rotation center axis”
(¶ 97)). Thus, the skilled artisan would have understood an “axis” to at least
correspond to a reference line and not merely a point on such a line.
Also, Barton discloses that, in Figure 1, “[t]he planar patterns of the
magneto-resistance layers 11 and 12 have a meandering or serpentine
shape.” Barton ¶ 33. Figure 1 of Barton depicts layers 11 and 12 as parallel
to each other. Kataoka also suggests such a parallel relationship between
elements to be considered “in the same plane.” Kataoka, claim 21. Thus,
the relied upon prior art refers to parallel elements as being in the same
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
9
plane. Taken together, the record suggests that the skilled artisan would
have understood “the second axis is in a plane” as the axis being parallel to
the plane. This is in direct contrast with the Examiner’s unsupported
interpretation. Cf., Ans. 12 (“Appellant is not claiming that the second axis
must be parallel to, or along, or even entirely located in the plane,” but could
be an “axis that is perpendicular to the plane but still goes through the
plane”).
We also note that the Examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is
not entirely consistent with the Examiner’s discussion of the plane of the
pinned layer vis-à-vis the arrow depicted in the annotated Figure 29 of
Okada, reproduced infra. See Ans. 7 (“The long arrow shown in the above
figure of paragraph 4 of this Examiner’s Answer is therefore in the plane of
the pinned layer as it exists in the plane of the page.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, in one instance, the Examiner determines all points of an axis (the
arrow) to be entirely within the plane, and is, “therefore in the plane.” Ans.
7. And in another, the Examiner determines that a single point of an axis
passes through a plane and is nevertheless “in the plane.” Final Act. 9;
Ans. 12.
We also observe that the Examiner’s reliance on an extrinsic
definition of the term “in” (Ans. 13) is insufficient because it fails to account
for additional words that provide context to the limitation at issue––i.e., “the
second axis is in a plane.” Notably, the claim expressly requires that the
second axis is in a plane, not merely a point along said axis.
Because the Examiner applies an unreasonably broad construction to
this claim element, we do not sustain these rejections.
Appeal 2021-000247
Application 15/160,244
10
CONCLUSION
Rejections I, III, and V are affirmed.
Rejections II, IV, and VI–VIII are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6 112 Written Description 6
1, 3–5 102 Okada 1, 3–5
11, 12 102 Barton 11, 12
2, 9 103 Okada, Barton 2, 9
6 103 Okada, Ando 6
7 103 Okada 7
2 103 Okada, Shimano 2
2, 9 103 Okada, Kataoka 2, 9
Overall
Outcome
6, 11, 12 1–5, 7, 9

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

AFFIRMED-IN-PART