Blattler, Hans-Peter et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 30, 2020

13161544 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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. 13/161,544 06/16/2011 Hans-Peter Blattler BLAT3001/TJM/TL 5667 23364 7590 01/30/2020 BACON & THOMAS, PLLC 625 SLATERS LANE FOURTH FLOOR ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176 EXAMINER VORTMAN, ANATOLY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2020 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): MAIL@BACONTHOMAS.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HANS-PETER BLATTLER, PETER STRAUB, and JOSE RAMOS ____________ Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–13, 15–26, and 28. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Schurter AG, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 26, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed December 3, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed April 18, 2018, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 25, 2014, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention The claims relate to a fuse element, formed by multilayer technology, for use in an electronic circuit on a printed circuit board. See Abstract. Prior Decision In a DECISION mailed September 22, 2017, the present Panel of the Board REVERSED the rejections of the claims. Pending claim 1 retains its then-pending form. Claims Claims 1 and 28 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A fuse element for use in electric and/or electronic circuits constructed by multilayer technology, comprising a printed circuit board substrate material, coated with a metal or metal alloy defining a fuse and being formed by photolithographic and/or printing image-producing techniques and ensuing etching or engraving processes, wherein the printed circuit board substrate material, on which the fuse is provided, comprises at least a high-temperature-stable, electrically insulating material. References and Rejections3 Author Reference Date Sims US 2,941,059 June 14, 1960 Ganci US 3,248,680 Apr. 26, 1966 Gaia US 4,041,435 Aug. 9, 1977 Parker US 2003/0142453 A1 July 31, 2003 3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 3 1. Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15, 16, and 18–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Parker. Final Act. 5–9. 2. Claims 1, 21, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sims. Final Act. 10–11. 3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parker taken alone. Final Act. 12–13. 4. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parker and Gaia. Final Act. 13–14. 5. Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Parker and Ganci. Final Act. 14–16. 6. Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sims and Ganci. Final Act. 17–19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1–13, 15–26, and 28 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred. OBJECTIONS: SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS 26 AND 28. The objections by the Examiner to the Specification (see Final Act. 2– 3; Appeal Br. 6–8, 11–18), and to claims 26 and 28 (see Final Act. 4), are not within our jurisdiction because these are petitionable, not appealable, issues. The proper procedure under MPEP §1002.02(c)(4) is to file a petition with the Technology Center Director under 37 C.F.R. §1.113(a) regarding any objections made by the Examiner (“Petition may be taken to Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 4 the Director in the case of objections or requirements not involved in the rejection of any claim.”). CLAIMS 1–4, 7–16, AND 18–25: ANTICIPATION BY PARKER. Appellant contends Parker fails to disclose “a printed circuit board substrate material, coated with a metal or metal alloy defining a fuse,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19. A printed circuit board substrate material. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the printed circuit board substrate material, on which the fuse is provided, comprises at least a high- temperature-stable, electrically insulating material.” Claim 28, the only other independent claim, contain a commensurate recitation. The Examiner maps the claimed “printed circuit board substrate material,” to Parker’s disclosure of KAPTON. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds “KAPTON” is a temperature stable electrically insulating printed circuit board substrate material.” Id. (citing Wikipedia).4 Appellant contends Parker only discloses that the upper and lower intermediate insulation layers are each fabricated from a dielectric film, such as a 0.002 inch thick polyimide commercially available and sold under the trademark KAPTON. Appeal Br. 23 (citing Parker, ¶ 45). Appellant argues the person of ordinary skill would have understood that the fuse element layer (20) is a layer of material that is separate from the insulating layers since it is placed between the insulating layers (22, 24). Id. (citing Parker, Fig. 2). Appellant further argues the Examiner has not provided any 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton. Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 5 evidence that Parker teaches the insulating layer is a printed circuit board substrate material. Id. The Examiner finds “Kapton is used in, among other things, flexible printed circuits.” Ans. 9 (citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton). Thus, the Examiner finds Parker teaches Kapton as a printed circuit substrate material, as claimed. First, we decline to credit the Examiner’s citation to a Wikipedia page because neither the Board, nor the Courts, consider Wikipedia to be a reliable reference. See Ex parte Three-Dimensional Media Group, Ltd., No. 2009-004087, 2010 WL 3017280, at *17 (BPAI July 30, 2010) (“Wikipedia is generally not to be considered as trustworthy as traditional sources for several reasons, for example because (1) it is not peer reviewed; (2) the authors are unknown; and (3) apparently anyone can contribute to the source definition” (citing Techradium, Inc. Blackboard Connect Inc., No. 2-08-CV- 00214, 2009 WL 1152985 *4 n. 5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2009)); Bing Shun Li v. Holder, No. 09-60551, F. App’x 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2010) (noting Wikipedia’s unreliability) (citing Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910–11 (8th Cir. 2008). The dates associated with a Wikipedia page are uncertain because “anything can be fixed or improved later.” Id. Second, the Courts acknowledge “[t]he longstanding difficulty [that] is the contrasting nature of the axioms that (a) a claim must be read in view of the specification and (b) a court may not read a limitation into a claim from the specification.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant does not provide an explicit definition for the claimed material. However, even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, “the specification Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 6 may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Appellant defines the term, at least by implication, by disclosing a first embodiment wherein it “is advantageous to select the material of the printed circuit board substrate such that the printed circuit board substrate material comprises at least one heat-hardened, glass-fiber-reinforced hydrocarbon/ceramic laminate. Material of this kind is available on the market, for instance from the Rogers Corporation under the product name R04000.” Spec. ¶ 11. Appellant discloses a second embodiment wherein “the printed circuit board substrate material preferably comprises at least one ceramic-enriched, temperature-conducting epoxy resin laminate, and this material is known and available on the market under the product name Arlon91ML from the Arlon Corporation.” Spec. ¶ 12. We agree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 23), the Examiner has provided no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a 0.002 inch thick polyimide film, i.e., KAPTON, as the equivalent of either a “heat-hardened, glass-fiber-reinforced hydrocarbon/ceramic laminate” or a “ceramic-enriched, temperature- conducting epoxy resin laminate,” as disclosed by Appellant. See Spec., ¶¶ 11, 12. Contrary to the Examiner, Parker does not disclose KAPTON as a “printed circuit board substrate material.” Parker discloses “upper and lower intermediate insulation layers are each fabricated from a dielectric Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 7 film, such as a 0.002 inch thick polyimide commercially available and sold under the trademark KAPTON®.” Parker ¶ 45 (citied by the Examiner). In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1–13, 15–26, and 28 as anticipated by Parker. CLAIMS 5 AND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PARKER. The Examiner applies Parker, as discussed above. Final Act. 12. Dependent claims 5 and 6 are allowable for at least the reason that these claims depend from and include the elements of allowable independent claim l. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2002). CLAIMS 17, 26, AND 28: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PARKER AND GAIA OR GANCI. The Examiner applies Parker, as discussed above and does not apply Gaia or Ganci as relevant to the preceding discussion. Final Act. 14–15. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 17, 26, and 28 as obvious over Parker, Gaia, and/or Ganci. CLAIMS 1, 21, 23, AND 25: ANTICIPATION BY SIMS. A high-temperature-stable, electrically insulating material. The Examiner maps the claimed “wherein the printed circuit board substrate material, on which the fuse is provided, comprises at least a high- temperature-stable, electrically insulating material,” to Sims’ disclosure of: an insulator board generally designated by numeral 10 of an insulating material such as a fiber, synthetic resin, or plastic capable of withstanding heat to an extent necessary in accordance with the present invention. Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 8 Final Act. 10 (quoting Sims, col. 1, ll. 66–71). Appellant contends Sims disclosed printed circuit board substrate comprises only prior art materials that allow temperatures only below 200°C. Appeal Br. 27. Appellant argues there is no evidence Sims relates to fuses which in their application environments experience temperature up to 280°C. Id. The Examiner finds Sims discloses “an insulating material such as a fiber, synthetic resin, or plastic capable of withstanding heat to an extent necessary in accordance with the present invention.” Ans. 14 (quoting Sims, col. 1, ll. 66–71). The Examiner makes no finding as to how much heat is necessary according to Sims invention. See Ans. 14. Leaving to our speculation whether Sims may withstand heat above 200°C that Appellant discloses in relation to their invention. Spec., ¶ 7; see Appeal Br. 27. We decline to engage in Speculation. As discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize an insulating material such as a fiber, synthetic resin, or plastic capable of withstanding heat to an [unspecified] extent, as the equivalent of either a “heat-hardened, glass-fiber-reinforced hydrocarbon/ceramic laminate” or a “ceramic-enriched, temperature- conducting epoxy resin laminate,” as disclosed by Appellant. See Spec., ¶¶ 11, 12. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1, 21, 23, and 25 as anticipated by Sims. Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sims and Ganci. Appeal 2019-002508 Application 13/161,544 9 DEPENDENT CLAIM 26 AND INDEPENDENT 28: OBVIOUS OVER SIMS AND GANCI. The Examiner applies Sims, as discussed above and does not apply Ganci as relevant to the preceding discussion. Final Act. 17–18. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 28. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Claims Affirmed Claims Reversed 1–4, 7–16, 18–25 102 Parker 1–4, 7–16, 18–25 1, 21, 23, 25 102 Sims 1, 21, 23, 25 5, 6 103(a) Parker 5, 6 17 103(a) Parker and Gaia 17 26, 28 103(a) Parker and Ganci 26, 28 26, 28 103(a) Sims and Ganci 26, 28 Overall Outcome 1–13, 15– 26, 28 REVERSED5 5 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).