Ex Parte Laermer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

14446066 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
14/446,066 07/29/2014 Franz LAERMER BOSC.P8919US/1000201962 3223
24972 7590 11/02/2017
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
nyipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANZ LAERMER,1
Ricardo Ehrenpfordt, Jochen Zoellin, Bill Scott, and Jeff Berryman
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Franz Laermer, Ricardo Ehrenpfordt, Jochen Zoellin, Bill Scott, and
Jeff Berryman (“Laermer”) timely request rehearing2 of our Decision3
affirming the rejection of appealed claims 2, 4, 9, and 16—18. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We have reconsidered our Decision but we
deny the relief requested.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Robert Bosch GmbH. (Appeal
Brief, filed 7 June 2016 (“Br”), 1.)
2 Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(2),
filed 17 October 2017 (“Request,” cited as “Req.”)
3 Decision on Appeal mailed 5 September 2017 (“Opinion,” cited as “Op.”).
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
OPINION
Laermer urges first that, in considering the following annotated
version of Reining Figure 3, shown below,
Tp3- W-b igfa ‘12
3*5
{Reining Figure 3 shows a MEMS capacitive microphone assembly
(cross-hatching indicating the volume “between” MEMS microphone
assemblies by Laermer (Req. 2)}
we erred in interpreting the word “between” as that word is used in claim 18.
In particular, claim 18 recites,
the bearer is a circuit board that is positioned
between the two substrates and
between the two MEMS components
(Claims App., Br. [7]; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added)
Laermer urges that the cross-hatched region is the only region
“between” the MEMS components, so the bearer circuit board 504 cannot be
considered to be “between” those components. (Req. 2, 2d para.; cf. Br. 3,
4 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
3d para.) Rather, Laermer argues, the MEMs components are “between” the
walls of circuit board 50. (Id.)
We withdraw our interpretation, but, as explained infra, our error was
to consider this Figure, because it does not represent the structure the
Examiner found would have rendered obvious the subject matter of
claim 18. As will be seen, our error and the Examiner’s error in considering
Figure were harmless.
The Examiner stated the core of the rejection in the following words:
Because Sato shows that either configuration can be used,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to
invert each of Reining's MEMS components 10a, 10b, such
that the backside of each of the substrates 14a, 14b are
attached to the bearer 50, thereby yielding the same closed
space as that shown in Sato’s Fig. 11, wherein the counter­
element 13a, 13b are arranged outside of the
diaphragms 12a, 12b. So rearranged, “the two MEMS
components 10a, 10b, the two substrates 14a, 14b, and the
bearer 50 together enclose a space that is only acoustically
permeable through the two stationary acoustically permeable
counter-elements 13a, 13b.”
(FR5 5,11. 11—18; cited and quoted in part at Op. 8, 1st full para.; underlining
omitted; emphasis added.)
Laermer renews its argument that urges that “if Reining is flipped in
that manner, then there would no longer be any reason for element 50.”
(Req. 3,11. 2—3.) Laermer explains that “[ejlement 50 is necessary in
Reining because without it, the electrodes 13 of each of the MEMS
components would interfere with the electrode 13 of the opposing MEMS
5 Final Rejection mailed 7 December 2015 (“FR”).
3
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
component.” (Id. at 11. 3—5.) Laermer then argues that “[i]f, however, the
structures are flipped, then those electrodes 13 would not interfere with each
other, and there would no longer be any reason to include Reining’s laminate
structure 50 (relied upon as disclosing the bearer/circuit board of the
claim).” (Id. at 11. 7—10.) The resulting structure, according to Laermer, is
as follows:
A-.'k ?• ;*> at.*
V
’ SNy.
r ’&v'
1 14a |
14b!
(Laermer’s proposed structure based on Reining (Br. 4; Req. 3)}
The difficulty with this argument is that Laermer appears to have
overlooked Reining’s teaching that “the microphone signals are processed
by an ASIC 17.” (Reining 6,1. 24, describing the conventional MEMS
capacitive microphone design in Figure 1.) This teaching also applies to
Reining Figure 4, reproduced below;
(Reining Figure 4 shows a dual MEMs microphone with circuit board 50
connected to ASIC 17 by a wire to provide for signal processing}
Thus, following the Examiner’s suggestion, Figure 4 would be modified as
shown, crudely, on the following page:
4
Appeal 2017-001088
Application 14/446,066
{Modified Reining Figure 4 is shown below}
{Reining Figure 4, modified following the Examiner’s suggestions}
Circuit board 50 remains intact. Wire links similar to structure 562 in
Sato, Figure 11, providing electrical connections between the MEMs
circuitry on the now-upper face of substrate 14b and lower face of
substrate 14a to circuit board 50, are not shown. The resulting structure
provides the space enclosed by MEMs components 12a, 12b, the two
substrates 14a, 14b, and the bearer 50, that is only acoustically permeable
through the two stationary acoustically permeable counter-elements required
by claim 18.
The potential existence of other ways to modify the microphone
described by Reining, such as the one proposed by Laermer, does not render
the suggestion by the Examiner non-obvious. In conclusion, we are not
persuaded of harmful error in the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the request for relief is denied.
DENIED
5