EPCOS AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 8, 2021

2020004575 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2021)

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. 15/866,385 01/09/2018 Günter Engel EPC-296C1-EH 4155 25962 7590 06/08/2021 SLATER MATSIL, LLP 17950 PRESTON RD, SUITE 1000 DALLAS, TX 75252-5793 EXAMINER SINCLAIR, DAVID M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2848 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/08/2021 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): docketing@slatermatsil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GÜNTER ENGEL, MICHAEL SCHOSSMANN, MARKUS KOINI, ANDREA TESTINO, and CHRISTIAN HOFFMANN Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY R. SNAY, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EPCOS AG. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a multilayer ceramic capacitor having multiple electrodes situated between the ceramic layers. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with key limitations on appeal italicized: 1. A capacitor arrangement comprising: a ceramic multilayer capacitor comprising: a main body comprising ceramic layers, first electrode layers and second electrode layers arranged there between; and a first external contact and a second external contact on mutually opposite side surfaces, wherein the first external contact is electrically conductively connected to the first electrode layers and the second external contact is electrically conductively connected to the second electrode layers, wherein the main body has third electrode layers between the ceramic layers, the third electrode layers being electrically conductively connected to no external contact and overlapping with the first and second electrode layers, wherein each layer of the first, second and third electrode layers comprises a base metal, wherein the ceramic layers comprise an antiferroelectric dielectric material, wherein the ceramic layers are arranged along a layer stacking direction to form a stack, wherein the main body has a width B along a layer stacking direction, wherein the main body has a height H along a direction perpendicular to side surfaces on which the first and second external contacts are located, Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 3 wherein the main body has a length L along a direction perpendicular to the height H and perpendicular to the width B, and wherein B/H ≥ 0.3, L/B ≥ 1 and L/H ≥ 1. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Independent claim 20 is similar to independent claim 1 and requires additional structural features such as first and second metallic contact plates. Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: I. Claims 1–3, 12, 13, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishisaka,2 Maher,3 and Devoe ʼ4554; II. Claims 4–7, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishisaka, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, and ABB5; III. Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nishisaka, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, and Berghout6; IV. Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mihara,7 Maher, and Devoe ʼ455; V. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Devoe ʼ842,8 Maher, Devoe ʼ455, and Nishisaka; 2 US 2013/0200749 A1, published August 8, 2013. 3 Galeb H. Maher, Effect of Silver Doping on the Physical and Electrical Properties of PLZT Ceramics, 66 J. AMER. CERAMIC SCTY. 408 (1983). 4 US 2003/0231455 A1, published December 18, 2003. 5 DE 41 11 401 A1, published October 15, 1992. 6 US 4,910,638, issued March 20, 1990. 7 US 2006/0145401 A1, published July 6, 2006. 8 US 2010/0053842 A1, published March 4, 2010. Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 4 VI. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Devoe ʼ842, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, Nishisaka, and Ueshima9; VII. Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Devoe ʼ602,10 Maher, and Devoe ʼ455; and VIII. Claims 1–18 and 20 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claims 1–3 and 6–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,905,363. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Upon reviewing Appellant’s arguments, we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the rejections. We, therefore, affirm the rejections for essentially the reasons provided by the Examiner except where expressly noted herein. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant focuses a significant portion of its brief on the size ratios of width:height, length:width, and length:height recited in claims 1 and 20. Appeal Br. 9–14. Specifically, Appellant argues that none of the 9 US 2009/0301606 A1, published December 10, 2009. 10 US 2008/0291602 A1, published November 27, 2008. Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 5 references11 relied on by the Examiner teaches or suggests the claimed ratios. Here, we agree with Appellant that paragraph 87 of Nishisaka does not disclose which of the numerical values correspond to which side of the device as found by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 12; Final Act. 7. The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how this portion of Nishisaki’s disclosure evinces that L=1.0, H=0.5, and B=0.15. Appellant, however, has not contested the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 8) that the size ratios of the claimed capacitor arrangements are a matter of design choice, i.e., no Reply Brief has been filed. On this record, therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding the teachings of specific references does not reveal error in the Examiner’s alternative obviousness rationale for arriving at the claimed size ratios. We also disagree with Appellant’s argument regarding the scope of Maher’s teaching. Appeal Br. 8–9. As undisputedly found by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5), Maher recognizes that silver doped PLZT––an antiferroelectric dielectric material––is used as the ceramic dielectric in a multilayer ceramic capacitor. See Maher at 413 n.7 (citing U.S. Patent 4,027,209). Finally, we observe that Appellant does not address the obviousness- type double patenting rejection of record. Final Act. 31–40. We, therefore, summarily affirm that rejection. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming the Board’s decision to sustain an uncontested rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and finding the 11 We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Appellant’s arguments directed to Devoe ʼ842 (Appeal Br. 13–14) were apparently intended to reference Devoe ʼ602. See Final Act. 28–29 (relying on Devoe ʼ602 to evince the claimed dimensions). Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 6 appellant had waived his right to contest the indefiniteness rejection by not presenting arguments as to error in the rejection on appeal to the Board). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 12, 13, 16–19 103(a) Nishisaka, Maher, Devoe ʼ455 1–3, 12, 13, 16–19 4–7, 10, 20 103(a) Nishisaka, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, ABB 4–7, 10, 20 14, 15 103(a) Nishisaka, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, Berghout 14, 15 1, 11 103(a) Mihara, Maher, Devoe ʼ455 1, 11 1, 4, 5, 8 103(a) Devoe ʼ842, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, Nishisaka 1, 4, 5, 8 9 103(a) Devoe ʼ842, Maher, Devoe ʼ455, Nishisaka, Ueshima 9 1, 19 103(a) Devoe ʼ602, Maher, Devoe ʼ455 1, 19 1–18, 20 Non-Statutory Double Patenting (US 9,905,363) 1–18, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004575 Application 15/866,385 7 AFFIRMED