Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2020

2019003346 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

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. 15/306,937 10/26/2016 Axel Aue BOSC.P10162US/1000342941 8738 24972 7590 12/08/2020 NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas NEW YORK, NY 10019-6022 EXAMINER LEE, PHILIP C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2020 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 AXEL AUE and HANS-WALTER SCHMITT1 ____________________ Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Robert Bosch GmbH is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 2 INVENTION The invention relates generally to a system of at least two microcontrollers on a common semiconductor substrate, each of the at least two microcontrollers respectively having one hardware interface. Abstract. Claim 11 is reproduced below. 11. A system, comprising: at least two microcontrollers on a common semiconductor substrate, each of the at least two microcontrollers having a respective hardware interface on the common semiconductor substrate, and the at least two microcontrollers being coupled to each other via the respective hardware interfaces by a plurality of circuit traces, the plurality of circuit traces being on the common semiconductor substrate, wherein the at least two microcontrollers transmit data to each other via the plurality of circuit traces. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2,3 The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adams (US 2015/0277778 A1, published October 1, 2015). Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Tang (US 2007/0162663 A1, published July 12, 2007). Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams. Final Act. 7-8. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) Final Office Action mailed October 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 15, 2019 (“Ans.”). 3 The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Final Act 4.) has been withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 3 The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Yang (US 8,823,007 B2, patented September 2, 2014). Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams and Morita (US 2009/0187605 A1, published July 23, 2009). Final Act. 9-10. ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 11 is in error as Adams does not teach at least two microcontrollers on a semiconductor substrate as claimed. Appeal Br. 4, Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that Adams does not teach the embedded controller 132 and the processor 120, which the Examiner equates to the two claimed microcontrollers, on a common semiconductor substrate. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that Adams teaches that the processor and other components of the computing device are on a single chip and subsequently identifies that the computing device may include an embedded controller, but does not identify the embedded controller is on the same chip as the processor. Appeal Br. 4. (citing Adams ¶¶ 17, 19). Further, Appellant identifies Adams identifies that the embedded controller may be embodied as a microcontroller or other chip that is separate or independent from the processor. Appeal Br. 4 (citing Adams ¶ 19). Appellant additionally argues that the claim also recites that each of the microcontrollers has a respective hardware interface and that Adams does not teach the embedded controller has its own interface. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument concerning the two Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 4 microcontrollers being on the same substrate, stating: Adams teaches the embedded controller 132 may be fabricated on an older or larger semiconductor processor node compared to the processor 120. However, Adams does not teach that this must be the only way. Figure 1 and paragraphs 17 and 19 of Adams teach that processor 120 along with other components of the computer device 100 which includes embedded controller 132 on a single IC chip. Adams teaches both the use of a single chip and the use of a second substrate as alternatives; this is sufficient to anticipate the use of a single chip. Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). Further, with respect to Appellant’s arguments concerning the embedded controller having its own interface, the Examiner finds that Adams teaches this feature in paragraphs 37 and 38. We have reviewed the teachings of Adams and concur with the Examiner that Adams teaches the computer device can contain both the processor and the embedded controller on a single chip. Appellant’s arguments, which rely upon paragraphs 17 and 19 of Adams, merely demonstrate that Adams contemplates an embodiment where they may be on separate chips. In addition to portions of Adams cited by the Examiner, we note that Adams identifies that typically, computing devices include one or more controllers on the same chipset, further supporting the Examiner’s finding that Adams teaches two controllers on the same substrate.4 Additionally, we concur with the Examiner that Adams teaches the embedded controller has its own I/O resources as claimed and the I/O subsystem 122 is associated with the processor 120. See Adams Fig. 1 4 We also note that, Tang (titled Single-Chip Multiple Controller Package structure), which is used in the obviousness rejection of claim 12, also demonstrates that it is common to have multiple microcontrollers on a single chip. Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 5 ¶¶ 17, 37. We note that Appellant’s arguments, in the Reply Brief, that Adams does not describe how data is transmitted between the processor and the controller was not timely filed. Reply Br. 3. Appellant has not shown that the arguments presented in prior responses could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief, and as such they were waived. These new arguments in the Reply Brief could have been presented in the Appeal Brief, are not prompted by the Examiner’s Answer, and are not based on any new arguments or grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. As a result, Appellant has waived such untimely argument because Appellant has not shown good cause for belatedly raising the new argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, and claims 13, 14, 16, and 18 grouped with claim 11. Obviousness Rejections Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 17 is in error as the claim recites the two microcontrollers are produced side by side and in parallel with one another. Appeal Br. 6, Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant argues that Yang teaches that devices that have both Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (CMOS) and Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), and that the MEMS devices are simultaneously fabricated parallel to each other, but does not teach the CMOS devices are fabricated in parallel. Appeal Br. 6, (citing Yang col. 4, ll. 21-51, and col. 10, ll. 24-25). Further, Appellant argues: Yang mentions at col. l lines 67-2:3 that similar to IC Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 6 development, MEM development which focuses on increasing performance, reducing size, and decreasing cost, continues to be challenging. While the general goals may be similar, Yang never suggests that these goals could or should be achieved in the same or a similar way. And Yang never suggests its technique or even the principles for creating multiple MEMs devices would be useful for or could be applied to its CMOS layer, let alone, to multiple microcontrollers. Appeal Br. 6-7. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments, stating that Adams is relied upon to teach two microcontrollers as claimed but does not discuss the manufacturing process. Ans. 7 (citing ¶¶ 17, 19). Further, the Examiner states: Yang teaches an invention of fabricating MElV1S devices with one or more complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) devices (col. 1 lines 20-25). Yang teaches CMOS technology has become the predominant fabrication technology for integrated circuits (IC), however MEMS continues to rely upon conventional process technologies (col. 1 lines 31-36). Yang further teach similar to IC development, MEMS development which focuses on increasing performance, reducing size and decreasing cost continues to be challenging (col. 1 line 67-col. 1 line 3). Yang teaches fabricating more than one different MEMS device in parallel thus saving time compared to serial fabrication of such MEMS devices (col. 25, lines 25-28). As disclosed by Yang, both MEJ\'1S development and IC development focuses on performance, size and cost. One skilled in the art would be motivated to apply the parallel fabrication of MEMS in MEMS development similarly to IC development as in Adams's invention for the aforementioned benefits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Adams and Yang because Yang's teaching of MEMS devices parallel production would allow Adams's IC microcontrollers to be produced in parallel and side by side, thus saving time Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 7 compared to serial production (Yang, col. 10, lines 25-28). Ans. 6-7. We have reviewed the teachings of Adams and Yang and we concur with the Examiner that the combination of the references teaches a computer device with at least two microcontrollers on a single chip where they are produced side by side and in parallel as recited in claim 17. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, discussed above, which focus on Yang only teaching MEMS side by side and in parallel and not teaching that CMOS devices or microprocessors are produced in parallel. As discussed above, with respect to claim 11, the Examiner has demonstrated that Adams teaches at least two microcontrollers, on a single chip. Further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Yang teaches when making an integrated system on a chip, elementsof the system are manufactured side by side in parallel, with the advantage of saving time. Ans. 5-6. We concur with the Examiner that based upon these findings, the skilled artisan would consider it obvious that manufacture of two microcontrollers on a chip in parallel would thus save time compared to serial production. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 17. Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 15, 19, and 20 are in error for the same reasons as claim 11 and that the teachings of additional references do not make up for the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 11. Appeal Br. 5-7. As we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 15, 19, and 20. Appeal 2019-003346 Application 15/306,937 8 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through 20. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 102 Adams 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 12 103 Adams, Tang 12 15, 20 103 Adams 15, 20 17 103 Adams, Yang 17 19 103 Adams, Morita 19 Overall Outcome 11-20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED