12963817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Ausserlechner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2016

12963817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/963,817 12/09/2010 38881 7590 Infineon Technologies AG c/o Schiff Hardin LLP 666 Fifth A venue Suite 1700 NEW YORK, NY 10103 03/31/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Udo Ausserlechner 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 42792-0350 3628 EXAMINER NADAV,ORI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2811 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2016 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 UDO AUSSERLECHNER, VOLKER STRUTZ, and JOCHEN DANGELMAIER 1 Appeal2014-001197 2 Application 12/963,817 Technology Center 2800 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Infineon Technologies AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2 2This appeal is related to an appeal of co-pending application 12/963,787 (Appeal No. 2014-001196). App. Br. 3. An Oral Hearing was held in this appeal on February 29, 2016. Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 8. Claims 6, 7, and 9-22 have been withdrawn from consideration. App. Br. 22-25. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 3 We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to magnetic field current sensors. Abstract. In particular, a method of forming a conductor clip for a magnetic field current sensor is disclosed. Spec. 7-9, Fig. 1. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A method of forming a conductor clip for a magnetic field current sensor comprising: forming a footprint portion; forming a first contact portion and a second contact portion; and forming a first pillar portion and a second pillar portion coupling the first contact portion and the second contact portion, respectively, to the footprint portion to form the conductor clip, wherein current to be sensed by the magnetic field current sensor flows in the conductor clip between the first contact portion and the second contact portion, and wherein the first and second pillar portions have a constant height and are at 3 Because the claims on appeal have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential). 2 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 approximate right angles to the first contact portion, the second contact portion and the footprint portion. The Examiner's Rejections4 1. Claims 1-5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Non-Final Act. 2. 2. Claims 1-5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wombacher et al. (US 2009/0026560 Al; Jan. 29, 2009) ("Wombacher"). Non-Final Act. 4---6. Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in finding there is no explicit support in the embodiment of Figure 1 for the limitation "current to be sensed by the magnetic field current sensor flows in the conductor clip between the first contact portion and the second contact portion," as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Wombacher teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1? 4 Claims 1-5 and 8 had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner has withdrawn this rejection. Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 ANALYSIS 5 Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 112,first paragraph The Examiner finds "[t]here is no explicit support in the embodiment of figure 1 for the claimed limitations of 'current to be sensed by the magnetic field current sensor flows in the conductor clip between the first contact portion and the second contact portion', [sic] as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 2. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in limiting support for the claimed limitations to only Figure 1, rather than in view of the entire specification and other figures. App. Br. 10-11. Further, Appellants contend a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize: [A] magnetic field current sensor senses current by sensing a magnetic field induced by that current, and in view of the Application as filed in its entirety appreciates that the at least one magnetic field current sensor senses current carried by the unitary conductor by sensing a magnetic field induced by that current. App. Br. 11-12. We find Appellants' arguments and contentions persuasive of Examiner error. Figure 1 of Appellants' Specification depicts a current conductor clip (100). Spec. 7. Related descriptions in the Specification disclose that a notch may be provided in the footprint portion to "amplify current flow through [the] clip." Spec. 7. Further, exemplary sizes of the 5 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed August 8, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed October 28, 2013 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on August 28, 2013 ("Ans."); the Non- Final Office Action mailed on March 5, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken ("Non-Final Act."); and the Transcript from the Oral Hearing held on February 29, 2016 ("Tr."). 4 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 footprint portion of the current conductor clip are provided to accommodate the die (i.e., magnetic field current sensor) to be mounted thereon. See Spec. 7-8. For the reasons discussed supra, we find on the record before us sufficient support for the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph. Rejection under 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Wombacher teaches or suggests current flowing between the first and second contact portions of a conductor clip is sensed by a magnetic field current sensor because Wombacher does not disclose a conductor clip for a magnetic field current sensor. App. Br. 14. Rather, Appellants argue "Wombacher is primarily concerned with 'protecting a semiconductor sensor against environmental influences."' App. Br. 14. Further, Appellants contend Wombacher does not even mention a magnetic field current sensor. App. Br. 14. The Examiner explains that Wombacher teaches a package for semiconductor sensors. Ans. 9. The Examiner further explains that Wombacher provides a non-exhaustive list of exemplary semiconductor sensors not having a movable member such as magnetic or electric field sensors. Ans. 9 (citing Wombacher i-f 14). We note that a magnetic field current sensor falls within the broad category of semiconductor sensors not having a movable member. The Examiner determines, and we agree, the conductor clip of Wombacher can be used for a magnetic field current sensor. Ans. 9. 5 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 The Examiner further finds although Wombacher does not explicitly state that current flowing in a conductor clip is sensed by a magnetic field current sensor, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have current to be sensed by the magnetic field current sensor flow in the conductor clip between the first contact portion and the second contact portion in the structure of figure 4 of Wombacher et al. in order to test the structure for possible manufacturing defects. Non-Final Act. 4--5. Appellants contend the Examiner's hypothetical is in error because Figure 4 of Wombacher depicts multiple devices before singulation. App. Br. 16. Further, Appellants contend in referencing Figure 4 of Wombacher, the Examiner relies the portion of Figure 4 circled, as shown in the Appeal Brief and reproduced below. HG 4 Appellants provide an annotated copy of Figure 4 of Wombacher. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue that once singulated, "no current ... flows from 6 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 the left lead 13 to the right lead 13, via terminals 12, ... because there is no longer any physical connection therebetween." App. Br. 16. We do not agree with Appellants' interpretation of the portion of Figure 4 on which the Examiner relies. Rather than relying on a portion of Figure 4 that does not contain any device to sense current, we determine the Examiner instead relies on the portion of Figure 4 as we have annotated below: FIG 4 YI // x 301 c.-;:;;..=:.::._~_~2,.~-~--....~.:::.:> F 303 / As identified by the dashed oval in the annotated version of Figure 4 from Wombacher, terminal 12 (identified by the Examiner as the footprint portion) starts on the left side of the figure. Terminal 12 connects to vertical post 13 (i.e., first pillar portion) which connects to first contact portion 14. Bond wire 22 connects the first contact portion 14 to the die (e.g., magnetic field current sensor). Similar connections are present on the right side of the die (i.e., bond wire to second contact portion to second pillar portion to 7 Appeal2014-001197 Application 12/963,817 footprint portion). Appellants do not rebut that this interpretation is consistent with the Examiner's findings and suggested use of Wombacher to test the structure for possible manufacturing defects. Tr. 16-21 (no rebuttal of the Examiner's findings with evidence, but rather with attorney argument). Attorney argument is entitled to little probative value. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and of claims 2-5 and 8, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. App. Br. 18. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph. We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8 under ,.... !""' TT r1 r"i (\ -1 f\,.... / "- j J u.~.G. s lUj~aJ. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(a)(l). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 8