John L. Melanson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2019

14686834 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2019)

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.
14/686,834 04/15/2015 John L. Melanson 141841.00164 2974
115799 7590 07/29/2019
Cirrus Logic c/o Jackson Walker LLP
c/o Jackson Walker, L.L.P.
100 Congress Avenue
Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
KWOK, HELEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2861
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN L. MELANSON, ANINDYA BHATTACHARYA,
RODERICK D. HOLLEY, RUOXIN JIANG, STEPHEN T. HODAPP,
and JOHN C. TUCKER
____________

Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1–21 of Application 14/686,834
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Final Act. (Oct. 30, 2017) 2–6. Appellant1
seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Cirrus Logic, Inc., which is also identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
2
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to accelerometers. Spec.
1:12. In particular, the application concerns an accelerometer based on
phase demodulation of an electrical signal measured by the accelerometer.
Id. at 1:13–14. The Specification teaches an accelerometer that “may
include a spring-mounted mass, a positional encoder configured to measure
a position of the spring-mounted mass and output one or more signals
indicative of a sine and a cosine of the position.” Id. at 3:6–8. The
Specification further teaches that the accelerometer may include “a driver to
set and maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted mass, and a decoder
configured to process the one or more signals to calculate an acceleration of
the spring-mounted mass.” Id. at 8–10.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for measuring acceleration, comprising:
a spring-mounted mass;
a positional encoder configured to measure a position of the
spring-mounted mass and output one or more signals indicative
of a sine and a cosine of the position;
a driver to set and maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted
mass; and
a decoder configured to process the one or more signals to
calculate an acceleration of the spring-mounted mass.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–21 were finally rejected by Office Action dated October 30,
2017. Applicant (Appellant) submitted a “Response After Final Under
37 C.F.R. §[ ] 1.116(b)(1),” (“Response After Final”) dated December 28,
2017. The Response After Final did not seek to amend any claim but
offered argument in support of allowance. See Response After Final 8–10.
It was entered by the Examiner on January 11, 2018. On the same day, the
Examiner issued an Advisory Action indicating that the Applicant’s
response did not place the application in condition for allowance.
On January 30, 2018, Appellant submitted a Pre-Appeal Brief Request
for Review and a Notice of Appeal. The pre-appeal request set forth
arguments similar to those in the Response After Final. See Pre-Appeal
Brief Request for Review 2–4. On March 5, 2018, the Office issued a
Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief Review determining the
Applicant should proceed to the Board.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–16, and 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hartwell et al.2 Final Act. 2–4.
2. Claims 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Hartwell in view of Hulsing.3 Id. at 4–6.

2 US 2011/0018561 Al, published Jan. 27, 2011 (“Hartwell”).
3 US 2003/0200807 Al, published Oct. 30, 2003 (“Hulsing”).
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
4
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–16, and 18–
21 as anticipated by Hartwell. Id. at 2–4. In support of this rejection, the
Examiner finds, inter alia, that Hartwell teaches “a driver to set and
maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted mass (e.g. circuitry for a
closed loop where actuation signals are formed to drive the spring-mounted
mass; paragraph [0033]).” Final Act. 2. The cited portion of Hartwell
provides as follows:
a closed loop circuit may be employed to maintain the proof
mass 119 at a predefined location during acceleration. Such a
circuit comprises a closed loop that applies actuation signals to
cause the proof mass 119 to stay at the predefined location
based upon position feedback from the first and second
electrode arrays 126 and 129.

Hartwell ¶ 33.
In the Advisory Action, the Examiner determined as follows:
the claimed feature “a driver to set and maintain an oscillation
of the spring-mounted mass” is suggested in the Hartwell et al.
reference in paragraphs [0033] and [0038]. The claimed feature,
as broadly interpreted, is disclosed in paragraph [0033], a
closed loop circuit (e.g. the circuit as a whole is considered the
driver given its broadest interpretation) applies actuation signals
to cause the spring-mounted mass 119 to stay at a predefined
location based upon position feedback from the electrode arrays
126,129. In paragraph [0038], the limits of travel of the spring-
mounted mass 119 is restricted so that the electrode plates
maintain some overlap at all t[i]mes and also never overlap
completed. At the same time, in paragraphs [0024] and Figure 1
of the [i]nstant application, a feedback signal is provided to set
and maintain the oscillation of the spring-mounted mass.
Hence, the concept of a signal (feedback signal/actuation
signal) provided to the spring-mounted mass to set and maintain
the oscillation as disclosed in the [i]nstant application is
suggested in paragraph [0033] of Hartwell et al. Therefore,
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
5
Hartwell et al. suggests “a driver to set and maintain an
oscillation of the spring-mounted mass” for the reasons set forth
above.

Advisory Action dated January 11, 2018.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines that “[s]ince the actuator
[taught by paragraph 33 of Hartwell] applies these actuation signals to drive
the proof mass to swing back and forth to the predefined location, the
‘actuator’ is synonymous with a driver to set and maintain an oscillation of
the spring-mounted mass.” Answer 6.
Appellant argues that Hartwell fails to teach the “driver to set and
maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted mass,” recited in
Claim 1 and further fails to teach the similar limitations required by claims
10 and 14. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant contends that Hartwell teaches to use
a driver “to maintain a mass in a constant, fixed position” rather than “to set
and maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted mass.” Id. at 5.
Appellant offers a definition of oscillation as “[t]he variation, usually
with time, of the magnitude of a quantity with respect to a specified
reference when the magnitude is alternately greater and smaller than the
reference.” Reply Br. 2 (citing The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of
Electrical and Electronics Terms, Fifth Ed. (1993)). This is consistent with
the Specification which teaches an embodiment (depicted in Figure 1) where
“spring-mounted mass 23 may include features 26 and 27, while stator 32
may include corresponding features 28 on one side and corresponding
features 30 on another side.” Spec. 5:21–23. The Specification further
teaches that “[s]uch features 26, 27, 28, and 30 may be arranged . . . relative
to one another such that as spring-mounted mass 23 oscillates in the
directions x and -x, a capacitance between features 26 and features 28 and a
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
6
capacitance between features 27 and features 30 may vary.” Spec. 5:23–27
(emphasis added). Figure 1 of the Specification is reproduced below.

Figure 1 shows a system for determining acceleration that includes
accelerometer 12 which comprises driver 34, mass 23, and stator 32. Id. at
5:2–4, 14–17.
In view of the teachings of the Specification, we adopt Appellant’s
proposed definition of the term “oscillation” for purposes of the present
appeal. In the context of the present Specification, the “variation” referred
to in the proposed definition of oscillation is the physical displacement of
the spring-mounted mass and the “reference” is a stationary point such as
stator 32.
Hartwell does not teach variation in displacement relative to a
stationary reference point. Rather, it teaches “actuation signals to cause the
proof mass 119 to stay at the predefined location.” Hartwell ¶ 33
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
7
(emphasis added). Nor does it teach a displacement that is alternately
greater and smaller than the reference. Accordingly, Appellant has shown
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Hartwell teaches a
“driver to set and maintain an oscillation of the spring-mounted mass” as
required by claim 1.
The Examiner additionally rejects independent claims 10 and 14 as
anticipated by Hartwell. Final Act. 2–4. Claim 10 requires, inter alia, “an
input for receiving one or more positional encoder signals indicative of a
sine and a cosine of a position of an oscillating spring-mounted mass.”
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). Claim 10 further requires “a decoder
configured to process the one or more positional encoder signals to calculate
an acceleration of the oscillating spring-mounted mass.”
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that claim 10 is
“commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claims 1-3, 5-6 and [is]
rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.” Final Act. 4. In the
Answer, the Examiner finds that “[i]n paragraphs [0025], [0033] and [0047]
of Hartwell et al., Hartwell et al. teaches the CMOS electronics 113 would
have an input to receive the positional signals and process the positional
signals to calculate the acceleration of the proof mass 119.” Answer 7. In
making the foregoing determination, the Examiner apparently construes the
limitation of claim 10 recited above not to require “an oscillating spring-
mounted mass.”
Claim 10’s requirement that the input is “for receiving one or more
positional encoder signals indicative of a sine and a cosine of a position of
an oscillating spring-mounted mass” is a functional limitation. This is
equally true for the requirement of a decoder “configured to process the one
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
8
or more positional encoder signals to calculate an acceleration of the
oscillating spring-mounted mass.”
“‘Functional’ terminology may render a claim quite broad. By its
own literal terms a claim employing such language covers any and all
embodiments which perform the recited function.” In re Swinehart, 439
F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). The Federal Circuit has explained “that the
phrase ‘adapted to’ generally means ‘made to,’ ‘designed to,’ or ‘configured
to,’ though it can also be used more broadly to mean ‘capable of’ or ‘suitable
for.’” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
The Specification teaches as follows regarding the intended breadth of
the disclosure:
This disclosure encompasses all changes, substitutions,
variations, alterations, and modifications to the exemplary
embodiments herein that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would comprehend. Similarly, where appropriate, the
appended claims encompass all changes, substitutions,
variations, alterations, and modifications to the exemplary
embodiments herein that a person having ordinary skill in the
art would comprehend. Moreover, reference in the appended
claims to an apparatus or system or a component of an
apparatus or system being adapted to, arranged to, capable
of, configured to, enabled to, operable to, or operative to
perform a particular function encompasses that apparatus,
system, or component, whether or not it or that particular
function is activated, turned on, or unlocked, as long as that
apparatus, system, or component is so adapted, arranged,
capable, configured, enabled, operable, or operative.

Spec. 9:19–29.
Here, claim 10 requires that the input be “for” receiving certain
specific signals. We construe this to mean that it is capable of receiving
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
9
such signals. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., 172 F. Supp. 2d 516,
546 (D. Del. 2001) (construing the phrase “an I/O port for coupling said
integrated circuit to memory means,” to mean that, “this phrase indicates
only that the I/O port must be capable of being connected to an off-chip
memory means and not that it is actually connected to such memory
means.”) (emphasis added).
We construe the requirement of claim 10 that the decoder be
“configured to process the . . . signals to calculate an acceleration of the
oscillating spring-mounted mass” to mean that the decoder is made or
designed to process the signals to calculate the acceleration of the mass.
The Examiner has made a finding that Hartwell teaches an “input to
receive the positional signals and process the positional signals to calculate
the acceleration of the proof mass 119.” Answer 7. Appellant has not
directly disputed such findings. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown
reversible error with regard to the rejection of claim 10 or its dependent
claims (not separately argued).
Independent claim 14 is a method claim that requires “receiving one
or more positional encoder signals indicative of a sine and a cosine of a
position of an oscillating spring-mounted mass.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims
App.). Claim 14 further requires “processing the one or more positional
encoder signals to calculate an acceleration of the oscillating spring-mounted
mass.” Id.
The Examiner relies upon the same portion of Hartwell in finding that
“Hartwell et al. teaches the CMOS electronics 113 would receive the
positional signals and process the positional signals to calculate the
acceleration of the proof mass 119.” Answer 7. Appellant argues that “both
of Claim 10 and 14 recite the presence of an oscillating spring-mounted
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
10
mass.” Reply Br. 3. Here, we agree with Appellant that the claim term
“signals indicative of . . . a position of an oscillating spring-mounted mass”
requires an oscillating spring-mounted mass. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth above with regard to claim 1, we determine that Appellant has
shown reversible error with regard to the rejection of claim 14.

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 13, and 17 as obvious
over Hartwell in view of Hulsing. Final Act. 4–6. Appellant alleges error
on the same basis as with regard to claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Claim 4 depends
from claim 1. Claim 17 depends from claim 14. As we have determined
that Appellant has shown error with regard to the rejection of claims 1 and
14, supra, we similarly determine that Appellant has shown reversible error
with regard to the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 17.
Claim 13 depends from claim 10. We have determined that Appellant
has not shown error with regard to the rejection of claim 10. Appellant
relies upon the same arguments in support of its appeal of the rejection of
claim 13. As we have not found such arguments persuasive, we determine
that Appellant has not shown reversible error with regard to the rejection of
claim 13.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 14–16, and 18–21 as anticipated by
Hartwell is reversed.
The rejection of claims 10–12 as anticipated by Hartwell is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 17 as obvious over Hartwell in view of
Hulsing is reversed.
Appeal 2018-007925
Application 14/686,834
11
The rejection of claim 13 as obvious over Hartwell in view of Hulsing
is affirmed.

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-IN-PART