Ex Parte Frerichs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

10524672 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

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.
10/524,672 02/28/2007 Heinz Peter Frerichs 1001/0165PUS1 1532
60601 7590 12/31/2013
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, PLLC
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
FAIRFAX, VA 22033
EXAMINER
GORDON, MATTHEW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2013 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 HEINZ PETER FRERICHS and HERBERT VERHOEVEN
____________

Appeal 2011-011862
Application 10/524,672
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16-27 and 32-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 16 and 32 are representative of the subject matter on appeal
and are set forth below:

Appeal 2011-011862
Application 10/524,672

2
16. A multilayer semiconductor sensor, comprising:
a first functional layer;
a second functional layer;
an intermediate layer disposed between the first and the
second functional layers in a first predetermined region; and
a plurality of anchoring elements each embedded in at
least two of the first and the second functional layers and the
intermediate layer, where the anchoring elements comprise a
different material than that of the first and the second functional
layers.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Okada (machine translation) JP 2002-158447 A May 31, 2002

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 16-22, 27 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Okada.
2. Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
obvious over Okada.
ANALYSIS
It is the Examiner’s position that:
. . . Fig. 1 of Okada shows a concave opening in layer (108) which
post (104) fills. The shaded areas in the figure below show that the
posts (104) penetrate into the concave portion and below the top
planar surface of layer (108).
Appeal 2011-011862
Application 10/524,672

3

Therefore, the posts (104) are interpreted as being embedded in layer
(108). Furthermore, thefreedictionary.com provides several
applicable definitions of “embed" including "to fix firmly in a
surrounding mass" or "to enclose snugly or firmly". The examiner
interprets posts (104) as being enclosed snugly or firmly in layer
(108). Therefore, the posts are embedded according to this definition.
Ans. 7-8.
It is Appellants’ position that the Examiner does not address the
essential aspect of their claim language requiring a plurality of anchoring
elements each embedded “in at least two of the first and the second
functional layers and the intermediate layers”. Br. 6-7. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants explain that posts 104 of Okada are only embedded in
layer 102 (intermediate layer). Appellants also explain that Okada’s posts
104 are covered (not embedded) by layer 101/107a, and are also covered
(not embedded) by solder layer 105. Reply Br. 2
Okada’s Figures 1(a) thru 1(f) are reproduced below:

App
App

.
eal 2011-0
lication 10
11862
/524,672
4

Appeal 2011-011862
Application 10/524,672

5
Appellants submit that there is no definition of "embedded" that
includes the possibility that posts 104 are embedded in anything other than
layer 102 as shown in Okada’s figures, supra. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants submit that therefore their claims are not anticipated by
Okada because they require that the anchoring elements (posts) each are
embedded “in at least two of the first and the second functional layers and
the intermediate layer”. Id.
Appellants’ Figure 6 illustrates the configuration according to
Appellants’ claims:

Layer 1 is the intermediate layer. Layer 2 is the first functional layer.
Layer 6 is the second functional layer. Anchoring element 9 is embedded
“in at least two of the first and the second functional layers and the
intermediate layer.” Spec. 9.
Appeal 2011-011862
Application 10/524,672

6
We are in agreement with Appellants’ interpretation of Okada as it
applies to the claim terms at issue. The Examiner wishes us to view post
104 as being embedded in layer 108. However, Okada discloses the
following. Layer 102 Of Okada is an insulating layer in which conductor
post 104 is formed in portions 103 of layer 102 as shown in Figure 1(a) of
Okada, supra. Then, a solder layer is deposited upon the tip of the conductor
post 105, followed by formation of an adhesive layer 108. Okada, paras.
[0018] through [0027]. As Appellants submit, layers 105 and 108 thus cover
post 104. We further note that Okada also discloses that during the process,
conductor post 104 “eliminates the adhesive layer 108 and joins by solder”.
Okada, para. [0026]. As such, each post 104 is not embedded in any of
layers 105 or 108. Hence, the Examiner’s interpretation of Okada in this
regard is overly-broad.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejections on appeal, which both
rely upon this flawed interpretation of the claim language.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED

kmm