Ex Parte Schmid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12992401 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/992,401 12/28/2010
23122 7590
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 Renaissance Blvd
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406
08/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernhard Schmid
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.
l 700Pl l 996WOUS 7165
EXAMINER
KWOK, HELEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2856
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
PCorrespondence@ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNHARD SCHMID and ROLAND HILSER
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 11-18 and 20-24. We have jurisdiction. 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Continental Teves
AG & Co. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as a micromechanical
acceleration sensor that could be used to sense acceleration of a motor
vehicle. Spec. 1: 3-5. The embodiment of the invention depicted in Figure
6, for example, includes a seismic mass 2 suspended from torsion spring 1
with readout devices ( 4aa, 4ab, 4ba, and 4bb) above and below the torsion
spring. Id. 15:13-27. Figure 6 is reproduced below.
S.~L ~a 4aa 4~b S·aR
F'· 6 tg. ·.··
Figure 6 of the Specification shows an exemplary cross section of an
acceleration sensor.
Claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added and spacing added
to enhance readability, is the only independent claim on appeal and is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
11. A micromechanical acceleration sensor comprising:
at least a first seismic mass which is suspended m a
rotatable manner,
readout devices for detecting a rotation of the first seismic
mass positioned both above and below the first seismic mass, and
2
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
resetting devices positioned both above and below the first
se1sm1c mass,
wherein the resetting devices and/or readout devices of the
acceleration sensor are embodied in such a way that when at least
the first seismic mass is rotated in a first direction, the resetting
devices and/or readout devices above the first seismic mass
experience changes in capacitance in opposite directions and
inverse changes in plate spacing with respect to the resetting
devices and/or readout devices below the first seismic mass,
wherein at least the first seismic mass is suspended
eccentrically from at least one torsion spring.
Appeal Br. 2 7 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Yue et al.
(hereinafter "Yue")
Kapser et al.
(hereinafter "Kapser")
Kuisma
US 6,841,992 B2 Jan. 11, 2005
US 2006/0021436 Al Feb. 2, 2006
US 2007 /0000323 Al Jan. 4; 2007
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 11-18 and
20---24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yue and either Kuisma or
Kapser.
ANALYSIS
After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and
each of Appellants' contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed April 10, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed September 12, 2014 ("Appeal Br."),
the Examiner's Answer mailed November 6, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed December 15, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections for
the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner rejects all claims on appeal as obvious based upon Yue
in combination with Kuisma or Kasper. Final Act. 2. Appellants do not
separately argue claims 12-18 or 20-24. We therefore limit our discussion
to claim 11. Claims 12-18 and 20-24 stand or fall with that claim. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Yue teaches an acceleration sensor with a mass rotatable about a
hinge as depicted in Yue Figure 2, reproduced below:
c~HW
)'
Figure 2 of Yue illustrates its acceleration sensing device embodied as a
pendulous acceleration-sensing element. Yue 4:3-7. Figure 2 depicts
electrode sensors 108, 112, and 114 both above and below the sensing
4
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
element mass 102. Final Act. 2-3; Yue: 5:9-30. Figure 2 also depicts the
hinge axis Hof the pendulous acceleration-sensing element. Final Act. 2-3;
Yue 5:25-30.
Yue does not expressly state that its hinge may be a torsion spring.
Final Act. 3. Both Kuisma and Kasper, however, teach acceleration sensing
devices having rotatable masses suspended from a torsion spring. Final Act.
3; Kuisma i-f 11; Kasper i-fi-1 17, 20. Figure 1 of Kuisma, for example, is
reproduced below and illustrates the position of Kuisma's torsion spring 4
relative to the rotable mass 1 and measuring electrodes 2 and 3. Kuisma i-f
11.
1
~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~===:L..i::=:::::=:;:;;::';';;;:;;;;;;;;i........._
....... ".
4
·=~,':
~ :~ ~
,,,,,~:::::::~:,,,,,,rn,~L:=::,:::::!J-- --- 4
' __ 1 .,
'
Figure 1
Figure 1 of Kuisma shows a capacitive acceleration sensor solution in both
section and projection view. Kuisma i-f 11.
5
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
Similarly, Figure 2 of Kasper, reproduced below, depicts two seismic
masses 3 suspended eccentrically relative to center of gravity on torsion
spring elements 4 and also depicts sensing elements lOa-d. Kasper i-f 19.
Kasper i120.
Figure 2 is a sectional illustration of Kasper's sensor device depicting two
individual sensors and their seismic masses. Kasper i-f 14.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill to use a torsion spring to suspend Yue's mass as taught by
Kuisma or Kasper because doing so would be a design expedient that would
permit the mass to rotate about an axis without departing from the scope of
Yue's teachings. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly combines Kuisma or
Kasper with Yue because (1) the combination would change Yue's principal
of operation, (2) because the combination would change the deflection
characteristics of Yue's mass and require redesign of Yue's electrodes, (3)
because Yue' s mass is "already balanced by the electrodes," and ( 4) there
would be no expectation of success in making the combination. Appeal Br.
3--4. We disagree.
6
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
Yue, Kasper, and Kuisma all operate on the same principle: providing
an eccentrically suspended rotating mass and measuring its rotation to
determine acceleration. Yue indicates that the mass rotates on hinge H.
Final Act. 3; Yue Fig. 2. A person of skill in the art would have been
inclined to choose a torsion spring as the hinge in order to enable the
necessary rotation. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3. Although we have considered
the definitions of hinge and torsion spring provided by Appellants (Reply
Br. 2), the definitions do not preclude a torsion spring from acting as a hinge
that permits rotational movement of the mass in the context of the
Yue/Kasper/Kuisma devices. Indeed, this is exactly the purpose of the
torsion spring in Kasper and Kuisma. Ans. 2-3. Thus, implementation of
the torsion spring of Kasper or Kuisma into the device of Yue is no more
than a predictable variation and use of prior art elements according to
established function.
Even if Appellants' were correct that this implementation would
require adjustment to how Yue's sensors operate (Appeal Br. 3--4), Kasper
and Kuisma make use of a torsion spring in substantially the same
configuration as Yue and for the same purpose. Thus, a preponderance of
the evidence does not support that making this adjustment would have been
beyond the skill/capabilities of a person in the art. We therefore agree with
the Examiner that the combination would have been obvious. KSR Intern.
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). 3
3 Notably, one of skill in the art would have also been inclined to use sensors
both above and below the seismic mass( es) of Kasper or Kuisma because
Yue teaches that this configuration "optimizes response output performance"
and "provides a fourth degree of freedom for sensor design .... " Yue 6:9-
23. Thus, a person of skill would have recognized that Yue' s sensor design
could improve Kasper or Kuisma in the same way they improve Yue.
7
Appeal2015-002980
Application 12/992,401
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
11-18 and 20-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8