Ex Parte Savchenko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13365574 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/365,574
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
02/03/2012
02/28/2019
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arthur Savchenko
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.
H0033422-5772/1121-521US1 4341
EXAMINER
PARK,HYUND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AR THUR SA VCHENKO and FRED PETRI
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is said to be Honeywell International Inc. Appeal Brief
dated March 13, 2017 ("App. Br."), at 3.
2 Claims 13 and 14, which are also pending, have been objected to as depending
from a rejected base claim. The Examiner indicates that claims 13 and 14 would
be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the
base claim and any intervening claims. Final Office Action dated August 12, 2016
("Final Act."), at 7.
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Independent claims 1 and 7 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to the Appeal Brief.
Claim 1: A system comprising:
a first resonator coupled between a proof mass and a support
base on a first side of the proof mass and the support base;
a second resonator coupled between the proof mass and the
support base on a second side of the proof mass and the support base,
wherein the first and second resonators comprise double-ended tuning
forks (DETFs );
a first oscillator configured to generate a first drive signal at a
first frequency based on a first resonant mode of the first resonator;
a second oscillator configured to generate a second drive signal
at a second frequency based on a second resonant mode of the first
resonator;
a third oscillator configured to generate a third drive signal at a
third frequency based on a first resonant mode of the second
resonator;
a fourth oscillator configured to generate a fourth drive signal at
a fourth frequency based on a second resonant mode of the second
resonator;
a first drive mechanism configured to cause the first resonator
to resonate at the first and second resonant modes based on the
generated first and second drive signals;
a second drive mechanism configured to cause the second
resonator to resonate at the first and second resonant modes based on
the generated third and fourth drive signals; and
a processing device configured to generate an acceleration
value based on signals outputted by the first and second resonators.
App. Br. 20 (emphasis added).
Claim 7: A method comprising:
2
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
using a first oscillator, driving a first resonator to resonate at a
first resonant mode;
using a second oscillator, driving the first resonator to resonate
at a second resonant mode;
using a third oscillator, driving a second resonator to resonate at
the first resonant mode;
using a fourth oscillator, driving the second resonator to
resonate at the second resonant mode, wherein the first and second
resonators comprise double-ended tuning forks (DETFs); and
at a processing device, generating an acceleration value based
on signals outputted by the first and second resonators.
App. Br. 22 (emphasis added).
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Loper, Jr. 3 in view of Tudor et al. 4
B. DISCUSSION
1. Claims 1 and 3---6
Claim 1 recites a system comprising, inter alia, "a first resonator coupled
between a proof mass and a support base on a first side of the proof mass and the
support base" and "a second resonator coupled between the proof mass and the
support base on a second side of the proof mass and the support base." App. Br.
20 ( emphasis added).
The Appellants argue that Loper does not disclose first and second
resonators coupled between a proof mass and a support base on first and second
sides, respectively, of the proof mass and the support base, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10.
3 US 4,258,572, issued March 31, 1981 ("Loper").
4 M. J. Tudor & S. P. Beeby, Resonant Microsensors: Fundamentals and State of
the Art, 9 Sensors and Materials 457-71 (1997) ("Tudor").
3
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
Loper discloses an accelerometer comprising, inter alia, first resonator 20
and second resonator 22 coupled to proof mass 14 and support base 10 on
oppositely disposed ends of the respective proof mass and support base. Loper
Figure 1 is reproduced below.
Loper Figure 1 is a pictorial representation of
the disclosed accelerometer.
The Examiner finds that the first and second oppositely disposed ends of the
proof mass and the support base correspond to the claimed first and second sides,
respectively, of the proof mass and the support base. See Final Act. 3 (finding that
the first side of the proof mass and the support base is the left side in Fig. 1 and the
second side of the proof mass and the support base is the right side in Fig. 1 ). 5
During prosecution,
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
5 Final Office Action dated August 12, 2016.
4
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise
that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, the Appellants disclose that "[ o ]ne DETF [ double-ended tuning
fork] 36 is attached to a top of the proof mass 30 and the base section 32 and the
other DETF 38 is attached to a bottom of the proof mass 30 and the base section
32." Spec. ,r 7 ( emphasis added). Consistent with that disclosure, Appellants'
Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts first resonator 36 and second resonator 38
coupled on opposite swfaces of proof mass 30 and support base 32.
Appellants' Figure 1 is a partial perspective view of
an exemplary vibrating beam accelerometer.
Based on the Appellants' Specification, we interpret the term "side" in claim
1 to mean a surface. We, therefore, interpret "a first side of the proof mass and the
support base" to be a first surface of the proof mass and the support base and "a
second side of the proof mass and the support base" to be a second surface of the
5
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
proof mass and the support base, wherein the first surface is different from the
second surface. See App. Br. 20.
The Examiner has failed to show that Loper's resonators 20 and 22 are
coupled to different surfaces of proof mass 14 and support base 10. Likewise, the
Examiner has failed to establish that coupling Loper's resonators 20 and 22 to
different surfaces of proof mass 14 and support base 10 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the prior art of record. For those
reasons, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 is not sustained.
2. Claims 7 and 9-12
a. Claims 7, 9, and 102
Claim 7 recites that "the first and second resonators comprise double-ended
tuning forks (DETFs)." App. Br. 22.
The Examiner finds that Loper's accelerometer comprises, inter alia, first
and second resonators 20 and 22, respectively, comprising a pair of quartz crystals.
Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, finds that the resonators are not double-
ended tuning forks (DETFs) as recited in claim 7. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds Tudor discloses that a double-ended tuning fork (DETF)
resonator is "one of the better choice[ s] for being used in acceleration analysis ...
where double ended tuning forks are known for having improved performance
6 The Appellants argue, "[ fJor reasons analogous to those discussed above with
respect to claim 1 (Group 1), the Examiner failed to establish that Loper in view of
Tudor discloses the method of independent claim 7." App. Br. 17. In contrast to
claim 1, however, claim 7 does not recite that the first and second resonators are
coupled between a proof mass and a support base on first and second sides,
respectively, of the proof mass and the support base, and claim 7 does not recite
first and second drive mechanisms. Therefore, we address the Appellants'
arguments directed to claim 1 on pages 5-13 of the Appeal Brief with the
exception of arguments directed to those two limitations.
6
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
characteristics." Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds Tudor discloses various
resonator materials, including single crystal silicon and single crystal quartz,
wherein "quartz crystal exhibit[ s] linear temperature coefficient [ of] zero for
certain modes in certain crystal orientation[s]." Final Act. 5. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
replace Loper's quartz crystal resonators with
first and second resonators compris[ing] double-ended tuning forks
made of quartz crystals, since not only[] would [it] simply amount to
substituting one known type of resonator with another known type of
the same crystal material, but also due to the improved performance
characteristics of the sensor system with reduction in temperature
effect, as a result of said substitution.
Final Act. 5---6 ( emphasis added).
The Appellants contend that Tudor discloses fundamental resonator
geometries that include bridges, such as the bridge disclosed in Loper, and more
complex resonator geometries that include DETFs. App. Br. 8-9. Because "Tudor
describes DETFs as a 'more complex resonator geometr[y ], "' the Appellants argue
that replacing Loper's bridge resonators with Tudor's DETFs is "not a simple
substitution of one known type of resonator for another." App. Br. 9.
There is no dispute on this record that Tudor discloses that known resonator
geometries include bridges and DETFs. Tudor, Section 4.1. Moreover, Tudor
discloses that DETFs were known to be used in accelerometers. Tudor, Section
3.2; see also Ans. 3--4 (citing Tudor, Section 3.2).7 Thus, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the proposed modification of
Loper's accelerometer is nothing more than substituting one known type of
7 Examiner's Answer dated July 28, 2017.
7
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
resonator for another known type of resonator, wherein both resonators were
known to be used in accelerometers. 8
Next, the Appellants argue that Tudor does not disclose or suggest a DETF
made of quartz crystals. App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner recognizes that Tudor does not expressly describe
a DETF made of a single quartz crystal. Ans. 4. The Examiner, however, explains
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not only use a
DETF in Loper's accelerometer but also to use a DETF made of a single crystal
quartz based on the various advantages disclosed in Tudor. Ans. 5; see also Tudor,
Section 5.
The Appellants argue:
[ A ]t least because Tudor describes that it is common for resonators to
be fabricated from polysilicon, and that there are limited machining
processes available for quartz crystals as compared to silicon, one of
ordinary skill in the art would likely have avoided the use of quartz
crystals for fabrication of these "more complex resonators," such as
DETFs according to Tudor.
App. Br. 6 (footnote omitted).
The Appellants also argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
fabricated a DETF from a quartz crystal because Tudor discloses that electronics
cannot be integrated in quartz and quartz wafers are more expensive than silicon
wafers. 9 App. Br. 7.
8 Because a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner's first
reason for modifying Loper's accelerometer, it is not necessary to address the
Examiner's second, alternative reason for modifying Loper's accelerometer (i.e., to
improve performance characteristics of the sensor system with a reduction in
temperature effect). Final Act. 6.
9 Notably, the Appellants do not disclose the material of the DETF described in
their Specification.
8
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. First,
Tudor does not disclose that a DETF could not be fabricated from a quartz crystal
using an existing machining process, and the Appellants do not direct us to any
evidence establishing that it would have been outside the level of ordinary skill in
the art to fabricate a DETF from a quartz crystal using an existing process.
Second, the Appellants do not direct us to any disclosure in Loper indicating that
electronics are integrated in Loper's first and second resonators. Third, cost does
not carry much weight in an obviousness analysis. See In re F arrenkopf, 713 F .2d
714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("That a given combination would not be made by
businessmen for economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art
would not make the combination because of some technological incompatibility.").
The Appellants also argue that the modification proposed by the Examiner
would change the principle of operation of Loper's accelerometer. App. Br. 8.
The Appellants argue that Loper utilizes a pair of piezoelectric crystals (i.e.,
quartz) "'each having two independent resonant modes, each sensitive to
acceleration effects but exhibiting substantially different temperature
sensitivities."' App. Br. 8. The Appellants argue that the quartz crystals of
Loper's accelerometer "separate 'the effects of temperatures and strain in order to
obtain an accurate temperature compensated measure of acceleration."' App. Br.
7. The Appellants argue that Tudor, on the other hand, does not disclose or
suggest that a DETF has particular qualities related to temperature sensitivities.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that the basic concept of Loper "is that it uses different
temperature sensitivities in different modes inherent in single crystal quartz to
obtain temperature corrected acceleration values." Ans. 6 (italics added). The
Examiner finds that Tudor "discusses this same temperature behavior of single
9
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
crystal quartz inherent in different modes." Ans. 6 ( citing Tudor, Section 5); see
also Tudor, Section 5 ( disclosing that the linear temperature coefficient of
frequency for quartz "is zero for certain modes in certain crystal orientations").
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the proposed substitution would not have
modified the operation of Loper's accelerometer because a single crystal quartz
DETF "would have yielded the same temperature sensitivities along different
modes, and the temperature compensated acceleration values would have been the
result." Ans. 6. The Appellants do not direct us to any evidence to the contrary.
In sum, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 9,
and 10 is sustained. 10
b. Claims 11 and 1211
Claim 11 reads as follows:
Claim 11: The method of Claim 10, further comprising:
at a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital counter,
converting the output of the first bandpass filter to a first digital
frequency;
at a second analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital
counter, converting the output of the second bandpass filter to a
second digital frequency;
10 The Appellants indicate that "[ c ]laims 9 and 10 depend from claim 7, and
therefore include the subject matter of claim 7 ." App. Br. 17. Therefore, the
Appellants argue that "[ f]or at least the reasons stated above with respect to claim
7, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to claims 9 and 10." App. Br. 17.
11 The Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to show that Loper in view of
Tudor discloses or suggests the method of claim 11 "for reasons analogous to those
stated above with respect to claim 4 [] and claim 5." App. Br. 18.
10
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
at a third analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital counter,
converting the output of the third bandpass filter to a third digital
frequency;and
at a fourth analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digital
counter, converting the output of the fourth bandpass filter to a fourth
digital frequency.
App. Br. 23 (emphasis added). Claim 12 depends from claim 11. App. Br. 23.
The Examiner finds Loper discloses that dual mode oscillator 31, which
drives crystal 20, comprises a first bandpass filter (i.e., notch filter 36) and a
second bandpass filter (i.e., notch filter 40). Final Act. 6. Although not expressly
described in Loper, the Examiner finds that dual mode oscillator 50, which drives
crystal 22, has a corresponding structure, and thus, comprises a third bandpass
filter and a fourth bandpass filter as claimed. Final Act. 6.
The Appellants argue:
[T]he Examiner has not shown that one having ordinary skill in the art
would have understood the notch filters disclosed by Loper to have
been bandpass filters. Indeed, Loper discloses that the "notch filter 36
[] attenuates or rejects the C mode resonant frequency of the crystal
20" and the "filter 40 [] rejects the B mode resonant frequency of the
crystal 20." The descriptions of a notch filter, which reject a
particular frequency as described in Loper, would not be understood
by one of ordinary skill in that art as providing a disclosure or
suggestion of a bandpass filter as recited in claim [ 11].
App. Br. 13-14 (footnotes omitted; italics added).
Consistent with the Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that a notch
filter "is a filter known in the art as a filter that rejects 'particular' frequencies
within a certain range, and band passes frequencies outside that range." Ans. 9
(italics added). The Examiner recognizes that a bandpass filter, on the other hand,
operates in a different manner. See Ans. 8 (finding that a bandpass filter "is known
in the art as a filter that passes 'particular' frequencies within a certain range, and
11
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
rejects (attenuates) frequencies outside that range" (italics added)). Nonetheless,
the Examiner explains:
If the particular frequency range to pass/reject is not predetermined or
known, then both the bandpass filter and notch filter would be
interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the same, since
both types of filters band pass[] and band reject[] frequency ranges in
general terms. It is the relative relationship to a predetermined band
of frequency range that distinguishes one type of filter from another.
Since the claims simply generically recite[] filtering the signal and
nothing more, and Loper discloses a filter that band-pass[ es] bands of
frequency ranges (other than the C mode band that was rejected),
Loper discloses a bandpass filter and filtering signals, as claimed.
Ans. 9-10.
In response, the Appellants direct our attention to their Specification which
is said to disclose that "bandpass filters 160, 162, 172, 17 4 are chosen according to
the two resonant frequency modes experienced by the DETFs 136, 138. Outputs
from the filters 160, 162, 172, 174 are turned into digital frequency values by
analog-to-digital converters (ADC) with digital counters 164, 166, 176, 178."
Reply Br. 11 ( original emphasis omitted). 12
The Appellants explain:
In this example of Appellant's specification, the bandpass
filters are specifically chosen according to the two resonant frequency
modes experienced by the DETFs, and the outputs from these
bandpass filters are turned into the digital frequency values which are
sent to a processor in order to generate acceleration values based on
the digital frequency values. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the function of the bandpass filters is to pass
the resonant frequencies associated with the DETFs, and to filter out
ranges of other frequencies, which is different from the operations
performed by a notch filter in rejecting or attenuating the frequency
12 Reply Brief dated September 27, 2017.
12
Appeal2017-011855
Application 13/365,574
associated with the notch frequency of the notch filter, while allowing
other frequencies to pass through the notch filter.
Reply Br. 11-12 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand Loper's notch filters to be bandpass
filters as recited in claim 11. Reply Br. 12.
The Appellants' argument is persuasive of reversible error. The record on
appeal establishes that the claimed bandpass filter operates in a different manner
than Loper's notch filter. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 12
is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 11, and 12 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Loper in view of Tudor is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7, 9, and 10 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Loper in view of Tudor 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13