Ex Parte 6,377,439 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

90010861 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/001,267 11/18/2009 6377439 36856.1899-439IPR 2424
54066 7590 06/01/2012
MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
DIAMOND, ALAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 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 TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
90/010,861 02/12/2010 6,377,439 36856.1899-439EPR 7115
54066 7590 06/01/2012
MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 Alexander Bell Drive
SUITE 200
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
DIAMOND, ALAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Patent Owner and Appellant

v.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics
America, Inc.
Requester and Respondent
____________

Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JONI Y. CHANG, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

2

Patent Owner Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Patent
Owner”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-39.1 Third-Party Requester Samsung
Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.
(hereinafter “Requester”) urges that the Examiner’s decision must be
affirmed.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a merged reexamination proceeding of Reexamination Control
Nos. 95/001,267 and 90/010,8613 of United States Patent 6,377,439 B1
(hereinafter the “‘439 Patent”), which issued to Hiroshi Sekidou, Yoshikazu
Takagi, and Yasunobu Yoneda on April 23, 2002, based on Application
09/615,651, filed July 13, 2000.
We are also informed that the ‘439 Patent is the subject of litigation
styled Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electro Mechanical Co.,
Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 8:09-cv-01124-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal.).

1 See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief (filed July 15, 2011) (hereinafter “PO
App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer (mailed November 18, 2011) incorporating
by reference the Right of Appeal Notice (mailed February 25, 2011)
(hereinafter “RAN.”).
2 See Requester’s Respondent Brief (filed August 12, 2011) (hereinafter
“Req. Resp. Br.”).
3 See Decision, Sua Sponte, to merge Reexamination Proceedings (mailed
October 12, 2010).
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

3

The ‘439 Patent relates to an electronic multilayer ceramic component
having an electronic multilayer ceramic component where the size of a
region in which inner electrodes are disposed in a multilayer fashion and the
size of a part located outside that region is optimized. (Col. 1, ll. 6-11.)
Figure 1B of the ‘439 Patent is reproduced below:

Figure 1B is a cross-sectional view of an electronic multilayer ceramic
component according to an embodiment of the ‘439 Patent. (Col. 2, l. 65 –
col. 3, l. 3.) Figure 1B depicts a ceramic block 2 including side faces 2e and
2f, inner electrodes 3a-3e disposed within region EW, where a side gap
between the ends of the inner electrodes and one of the side faces has a
width is denoted as WG. (Col. 3, ll. 49-56.) The thickness of the region in
which the inner electrodes are laminated is designated as T and the thickness
of one of the outermost ceramic layers located outside the region including
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

4

the plurality of inner electrodes is denoted by G. (Col. 3, ll. 56-62.) The
‘493 Patent discloses that WG/EW≥0.3 and T/G≤7 in order to provide an
electronic multilayer ceramic component that is less susceptible to cracking
or delamination. (Col. 3, l. 64 – col. 4, l. 8.)
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, reads as
follows:
1. An electronic multilayer ceramic component
comprising:
a sintered ceramic block having a first end face, a second
end face, upper and lower surfaces connecting said first and
second end faces to each other, and a pair of side faces;
a plurality of inner electrodes disposed in the sintered
ceramic block such that said plurality of inner electrodes
overlap, in a thickness direction, with one another via ceramic
layers and such that each said inner electrode extends from said
first end face toward said second end face but not reaching said
second end face or from said second end face toward said first
end face but not reaching said first end face; and
a first outer electrode and a second outer electrode
formed such that said first and second end faces are covered
with said first and second outer electrodes, respectively;
wherein, when the width of the region in which said
plurality of inner electrodes are disposed such that said inner
electrodes overlap in the thickness direction with one another
via ceramic layers is denoted by EW, the width of a side gap
region between ends of said inner electrodes and one of side
faces of said sintered ceramic block is denoted by WG, the
thickness of a region in which said plurality of inner electrodes
are disposed such that said inner electrodes overlap in the
thickness direction with one another via ceramic layers is
denoted by T, and the thickness of one of the outermost ceramic
layers parallel to said plurality of inner electrodes and located
outside the region in which said plurality of inner electrodes are
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

5

disposed such that said inner electrodes overlap in the thickness
direction with one another via ceramic layers is denoted by G,
the following conditions are satisfied:
WG (the width of the side gap region between the ends of
the inner electrodes and one of the side faces)/EW≥0.3, and
T /G (the thickness of the one outermost ceramic
layer)≤7.0.

(PO App. Br. 31 Claims App’x.)

Patent Owner contests the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by JP ‘493;4
II. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, and 13-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over JP ‘493;
III. Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP
‘493 in view of JP ‘1615 further in view of JP ‘913;6
IV. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Admitted Prior Art in the ‘439 Patent (AAPA) in
view of JP ‘493;
V. Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
AAPA in view of JP ‘161 further in view of JP ‘913;

4 JP 09-129493, published May 16, 1997, citations to English translation of
record.
5 JP 10-22161, published January 23, 1998, citations to English translation
of record.
6 JP 61-183913, published August 16, 1986, citations to English translation
of record.
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

6

VI. Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP
‘913 in view of JP ‘161; and
VII. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, and 13-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over JP ‘913 in view of JP ‘573.7

The Examiner has maintained the following additional rejections not
identified or separately argued by Patent Owner:
VIII. Claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over JP ‘493 in view of JP ‘161 (RAN 10-11);
IX. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over JP ‘493 in view of Yoneda8 (RAN 11-13);
X. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over AAPA
in view of JP ‘493, further in view of Yoneda (RAN 19);
XI. Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over JP ‘913 in view of JP ‘573, further in view of Yoneda
(RAN 26); and
XII. Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP
‘913 in view of JP ‘573, further in view of AAPA (RAN 26-
27).

7 JP 11-67573, published March 9, 1999, citations to English translation of
record.
8 Yoneda et al., “Relationship between microstructure and characteristics of
multilayer capacitors having ‘core-shell’ structure,” CARTS-EUROPE ’96,
10th European Passive Components Symposium, 1996, pp. 11-16.
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

7

For the reasons discussed infra, we affirm Rejections II, IV, VIII, and
IX. As a result, we do not reach the Rejections III, V, VI, VII, X, XI, and
XII. However, we reverse Rejection I.

Rejections I and II

ISSUE
Patent Owner contends that the ratio W1/W2 disclosed in JP ‘493 is
not equivalent to the ratio WG/EW, because JP ‘493 does not discuss
electrode overlap or a positional relationship of one internal electrode
relative to another. (PO App. Br. 8.) Patent Owner argues W2 in Figure 5
(test example 1) of JP ‘493 has a middle region in which there is no overlap
of internal electrodes. (PO App. Br. 8, 10.) Regarding Figures 10-12 (test
example 3), Patent Owner argues that “W2 coincidently corresponds to a
region of overlap between the internal electrodes” and that there is no
description as to what the dimension W2 represents or the relationship to
other dimensions within the structures depicted in Figures 10-12. (PO App.
Br. 9.) Patent Owner further argues that the dimension W2 disclosed for the
embodiment depicted in Figure 5 cannot be substituted in the embodiments
depicted in Figures 10-12, because Figures 10-12 do not disclose a middle
region where there is no overlap of internal electrodes. (PO App. Br. 9-10.)
Both the Examiner and the Requester are of the position that the
region EW recited in the claims does not require the degree of overlap
argued by Patent Owner, such that the region EW reads on the region W2
disclosed in JP ‘493. (RAN 28-30, 33; Req. Resp. Br. 9-10, 21.) In
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

8

addition, both the Examiner and Requester state that JP ‘493 supports the
position that it would have been obvious to apply the ratios disclosed therein
(W2/W1 and T2/T1) to any of the embodiments depicted in the drawings.
(RAN 31-32, 35-36; Req. Resp. Br. 13, 14, 22.)
Accordingly, dispositive issues on appeal include:
When the claims are accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation,
does the region EW require some degree of overlap of internal electrodes?
Do the capacitors in JP ‘493 anticipate or render obvious the
electronic multilayer ceramic components recited in the claims?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. Figure 5 of JP ‘493 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 depicts a longitudinal sectional view of a laminated
capacitor 20 according to the first working example of JP’493
having dielectric layers 21, internal electrodes 22, slits 22a,
internal electrode pieces 22b, internal electrode formation
region 25, and external electrodes 24. (JP ‘493, p. 14-16.)
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

9

2. Figure 12 of JP ‘493 is reproduced below:

Figure 12 depicts a longitudinal sectional view of a laminated
capacitor 20 according to the third working example of JP’493
having dielectric layers 21, internal electrode pieces 22b,
internal electrode formation region 25, and external electrodes
24. (JP ‘493, p. 14, 18.)
3. In Figures 5 and 12 of JP ‘493, T is the length of a cross section
in a vertical direction, T1 is a distance from a circumferential
edge of the internal electrode formation region within the cross
section to one side of the cross section extending in the
horizontal direction and T2 is the length of the internal
electrode formation region in a vertical direction, W is the
length of the cross section in the horizontal direction, where W1
is a distance from a circumferential edge of the internal
electrode formation region within the cross section to one side
of the cross section extending in the vertical direction and W2
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

10

is the length of the internal electrode formation region in a
horizontal direction. (JP ‘493, paras. [0011], [0013], [0019].)
4. JP ‘493 discloses that the ratio of T2/T is from 0.2 to 0.7 and
the ratio of W2/W is from 0.1 to 0.8. When T2/T and/or W2/W
are set to such ratios, the internal electrode formation region
within said cross section is not susceptible to external effects,
and a large stray capacitance is avoided. (JP ‘493, paras.
[0019], [0020], [0031], claim 5.)
5. JP ‘493 discloses that “at least either” the ratio T2/T or the ratio
W2/W is within the range 0.1-0.8. (JP ‘493, para. [0021], claim
6.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must
give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification.’” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (quoting In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007)). Nevertheless, our reviewing court has repeatedly
“instructed that any such construction [must] be ‘consistent with the
specification, . . . and that claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’”
Id. at 1260.
A reference stands for all of its specific teachings, as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

11

1992); see also, Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“hold[ing] that while an analysis of
obviousness always depends on evidence that supports the required Graham
factual findings, it also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and
common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not
necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion.”).

ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the language in claim 1, “wherein, when the width of the
region in which said plurality of inner electrodes are disposed such that said
inner electrodes overlap in the thickness direction with one another via
ceramic layers is denoted by EW,” we agree with Patent Owner in that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification
of the ‘493 Patent, does not include inner electrode regions having
arrangements of overlapping internal electrodes and portions internal to the
width of the region where there is no overlap of internal electrodes. That is,
claim 1 expressly relates the width of region EW to the overlap of the inner
electrodes in the thickness direction. The ‘439 Patent Specification contains
similar language as recited in claim 1. (Col. 2, ll. 34-37.) Thus, the plain
language of claim 1 requires that there is a region having a defined width in
which internal electrodes are disposed, and that region requires overlapping
inner electrodes in the thickness direction over the entire width of that
region.

Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

12

Rejection I
In light of the claim interpretation discussed supra, we agree with
Patent Owner that Figure 5 of JP ‘493 fails to anticipate claim 1.
Specifically, while JP ‘493 discloses a region W2 in Figure 5 in which inner
electrodes 22 are disposed, region W2 in Figure 5 includes the area of slits
22a, where there are no overlapping inner electrodes in the thickness
direction. (FF 1.) As discussed above, the width of region EW is
characterized by the overlap of the inner electrodes in the thickness
direction, and thus the entire span of W2 in Figure 5 cannot reasonably
correspond to the claimed region EW. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims as being anticipated by JP ‘493.

Rejection II
The Examiner’s rejection of certain claims as being obvious over JP
‘493 stands on different footing. As can be seen in Figure 12 of JP ‘493,
region W2 includes internal electrodes completely overlapping in the
thickness direction, and thus, region W2 of Figure 12 corresponds to the
claimed region EW. (FF 2, 3.) We agree with the Examiner’s position that
it would have been obvious to have modified the W1/W2 and T2/T1 ratios in
the third working example disclosed in JP ‘493 and depicted in Figure 12 to
correspond to the WG/EW and T/G ratios recited in claim 1. (RAN 8-10.)
Initially, Patent Owner does not dispute the Examiner’s calculations that the
ranges disclosed in JP ‘493 for W2/W lead to a W1/W2 ratio of 0.1 to 5, and
thus would overlap the claimed WG/EW ratio of ≥ 0.3 or that the T2/T ratio
disclosed in JP ‘493 lead to a T2/T1 ratio in JP ‘493 range of 0.5 to 5 and is
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

13

within the claimed T/G ratio of ≤7.0. (See RAN 8-9; FF 4.) We are not
persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that JP ‘493 does not teach or
suggest that both the T2/T and W2/W ratios would be adjusted to lead to the
T2/T1 and W1/W2 ratios corresponding to the WG/EW and T/G ratios
recited in claim 1. (PO App. Br. 9-10.)
Whether the region W2 coincidently corresponds to a region of
overlap does not patentably distinguish the claims on appeal. JP ‘493
expressly discloses a region W2 of overlap as claimed in Figure 12. (FF 2,
3.) Additionally, Figure 12 depicts W2, W, and W1 dimensions. (FF 2.)
Although the description of the third example in JP ‘493 does not expressly
discuss the W2/W ratio as in the first and second working examples, when
viewing the disclosure of JP ‘493 as a whole one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that the disclosed W2/W ratio range would have also
been similarly applicable to the third working example of Figure 12 in order
to avoid stray capacitance. (FF 2-4.) See Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65.
Further, JP ‘493 expressly discloses that “at least either” the T2/T or
the W2/W ratio may be varied to within 0.1 to 0.8, which does not exclude
varying both ratios. (FF 5.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner and the
Requester, JP ‘493 suggests that for any of the structures disclosed therein,
including that of Figure 12, both the T2/T and W2/W ratio may be adjusted
to fall within the range of 0.1 to 0.8. Thus, we, like the Examiner and
Requester, do not read JP ‘493 so narrowly as to limit the disclosure of JP
‘493 as does Patent Owner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the claims as
being obvious over JP ‘493 alone.
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

14

Rejection IV
ISSUE
Patent Owner contends that the AAPA cannot be combined with JP
‘493 because while each is directed to constructing capacitors of smaller
size, the references have different objectives, where the AAPA is directed to
capacitors with high capacitance and JP ‘493 is directed to capacitors with
low capacitance. (PO App. Br. 13, 26.) Therefore, Patent Owner argues that
the capacitors in AAPA and the capacitors in JP ‘493 must have a different
structure such that incorporating the features of JP ‘493 into AAPA would
render the resulting capacitor unsatisfactory for maintaining the capacitance
at a high level. (PO App. Br. 13, 26.)
The Examiner’s position is that the AAPA does not limit the
capacitance, and both the AAPA and JP ‘493 are directed to making smaller
capacitors that have essentially the same structure and arrangement. (RAN
41-42.) The Examiner further states that JP ‘493 discloses that by using the
ratios and ranges described therein, a capacitor having a high quality factor
on a high frequency region can be obtained without being affected by the
mounted state. (RAN 42.)
Requester contends that the Examiner relies on JP ‘493 only to fill the
gaps in the AAPA, which are the specific dimensions claimed that are
omitted by the AAPA, and were well known in the art. (Req. Resp. Br. 16.)
Requester points out that the claims on appeal do not require any specific
capacitance, and Patent Owner has not provided any specific examples as to
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

15

how the structures of AAPA and JP ‘493 would be structurally different.
(Req. Resp. Br. 17.)
Therefore an additional issue on appeal is:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious to
apply the ratios and ranges disclosed in JP ‘493 to the capacitor disclosed in
the AAPA?
FINDINGS OF FACT
6. The ‘439 Patent states: “In the case of multilayer ceramic
capacitors, in order to reduce size while maintaining the
capacitance at a large values, the thickness of ceramic layers
between adjacent inner electrodes is selected to be as small as 5
µm or 3 µm or still smaller, and as many as several hundred
inner electrodes layers are used.” (Col. 1, ll. 25-30.)
7. JP ‘493 states: “the object of the present invention is to provide
a laminated capacitor that maintains capacitance at prescribed
low values without being affected by the mounted state.” (Para.
[0010].)

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have combined the AAPA and JP ‘493. As pointed
out by the Examiner and Requester, Patent Owner has not sufficiently
identified what specific structural differences would exist between
capacitors with high capacitance and capacitors with low capacitance that
would affect the dimensions of the capacitors at issue in this appeal. In other
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

16

words, we have not been directed to sufficient evidence of record that WG,
EW, T, and G would be different in capacitors with high capacitance than in
capacitors with low capacitance. Indeed, JP ‘493 discloses that the mounted
state does not influence the ability of the capacitors disclose therein to
maintain capacitance at the desired level. (FF 7.)
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in combining the AAPA with JP
‘493.

Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites that the multilayer ceramic
component has a number of inner electrodes in a range of 120 to 170.
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner states that the AAPA teaches that as many
as several hundred internal electrodes may be used, such that the number of
electrodes is a result effective variable that would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. (RAN 42-43; FF 6.)
Patent Owner argues that neither AAPA nor JP ‘493 discloses the
number of inner electrodes recited in claim 7. (PO App. Br. 13.)
Patent Owner does not dispute the Examiner’s position that the
number of electrodes is a result effective variable. In addition, Patent Owner
has not directed our attention to persuasive evidence showing any criticality
to a number of inner electrodes between 120 and 170, which is within the
range disclosed in the AAPA. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA
1980) (holding that when the difference between a claimed invention and the
prior art is a claimed range of a result-effective variable, the applicant must
show that the range is critical through unexpected results rather than an
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

17

optimization of properties); see also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330
(Fed Cir. 2003) (“the existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts
the burden to the applicant to show that his invention would not have been
obvious.”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a number of inner
electrodes within the claimed range depending on the desired capacitance in
the resulting ceramic component.

Rejections VIII and IX
Patent Owner has not provided any separate arguments challenging
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 12 (Rejection VIII) and claims 9
and 10 (Rejection IX) based on JP ‘493 in view of JP ‘161 or Yoneda.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons discussed
above in conjunction with our affirmance of the obviousness rejections
based on JP ‘493.

CONCLUSION
When the claims are accorded their broadest reasonable interpretation,
the region EW requires some degree of overlap of internal electrodes.
On this record, the Examiner did not err in concluding that:
the capacitors in JP ‘493 render obvious the electronic multilayer
ceramic components recited in the claims; and
it would have been obvious to apply the ratios and ranges disclosed in
JP ‘493 to the capacitor disclosed in the AAPA.
Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

18

However, the Examiner erred in finding that the capacitors in JP ‘493
anticipate the electronic multilayer ceramic components recited in the
claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-39 is affirmed.

In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a)(1), the “[p]arties to the
appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of
the date of: . . . [t]he original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a).” A
request for rehearing must be in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b).
Comments in opposition to the request and additional requests for rehearing
must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(c) & (d), respectively. Under
37 C.F.R. § 41.79(e), the times for requesting rehearing under paragraph (a)
of this section, for requesting further rehearing under paragraph (d) of this
section, and for submitting comments under paragraph (c) of this section
may not be extended.
An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an
inter partes reexamination proceeding “commenced” on or after November
2, 2002 may not be taken “until all parties' rights to request rehearing have
been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and
appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81. See
also MPEP § 2682 (8th ed., Rev. 7, July 2008).

Appeal 2012-004131
Reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,267 & 90/010,861
Patent 6,377,439 B1

19

AFFIRMED

PATENT OWNER:
MURATA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP
1800 ALEXANDRA BELL DRIVE
SUITE 200
RESTON, VA 20191

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
IP & T CALENDAR DEPARTMENT LA-13-A7
400 SOUTH HOPE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2899

cu