Ex Parte Decker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 5, 2018

14709583 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/709,583 05/12/2015 Stefan Decker 57579 7590 10/10/2018 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 CARY, NC 27518 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. 1012-1095 / 2014P50129 4149 us EXAMINER GORDON,MATTHEWE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/10/2018 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte STEFAN DECKER, ROBERT ILLING, and MICHAEL NELHIEBEL Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-10. 3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed May 12, 2015, the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Act.) dated May 23, 2017, Appellant's Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed November 17, 2017, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated December 29, 2017, and Appellants' Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 29, 2018. 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Infineon Technologies AG, which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). 3 Pending claims 2, 7, and 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner and are not before us on appeal (Final Act. 1 ). Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a semiconductor device including an integrated current sensor, wherein the device includes a load current component with a load current transistor area and a sensor component with a sensor transistor area (Spec. ,r 6). Appellant discloses that, because the current flowing through the sensor is substantially smaller than the current flowing through the load, different increases in local temperatures in the sensor and load may occur and that an excessive increase within the sensor may lead to sensor deterioration (id. ,r,r 3--4). To address this problem, Appellant provides that the sensor transistor area includes first and third transistor area parts differing from a second transistor area part therebetween by a sensor transistor area element being absent in the second transistor area part, thereby electrically disconnecting the second transistor area part from parallel connection with the first and third transistor area parts (id. ,r 6). Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A semiconductor device comprising a semiconductor body having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, the semiconductor body comprising: a load current component comprising a load current transistor area; and a sensor component comprising a sensor transistor area, wherein the sensor component is operable to supply a current proportional to a load current flowing through the load current component, wherein the sensor transistor area is at least partly surrounded by the load current transistor area, or arranged at a boundary portion of one or more sides of the load current transistor area, wherein the sensor transistor area comprises first and 2 Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 third transistor area parts differing from a second transistor area part between the first and the third transistor area parts by a sensor transistor area element being absent in the second transistor area part, wherein the second transistor area part is electrically disconnected from a parallel connection of the first and the third transistor area parts by the sensor transistor area element being absent in the second transistor area part. REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the following grounds of rejection: 1. Claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over, YabuÂ· 4 and ' 2. Claims 5, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Y abu in view of Challa. 5 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Y abu teaches, among other things, a sensor component 100 operable to supply a current proportional to a load current 111 since sensor component 100 supplies at least a proportion of load current 111 to reference voltage terminal 112 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds Yabu's ESD transistor 100 is a sensor component because it is designed to detect an ESD event and send the ESD current to reference terminal 112, where the ESD event is an event or change in its environment, the ESD current is the corresponding information, and the reference terminal 4 Yabu et al., US 2008/0210978 Al, published September 4, 2008 ("Yabu"). 5 Challa et al., US 2005/0167742 Al, published August 4, 2005 ("Challa"). 3 Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 112 is the other electronics (Ans. 2). In addition, the Examiner notes that the definition of a sensor and its function are not claimed, and the claims recite a "sensor component" rather than a "sensor" (id. at 3). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Yabu's ESD transistor 100 supplies an ESD current, the value of which "must necessarily have some 'proportional' relationship to the load current 111 flowing through load current component 120," especially since the claims fail to recite an specific proportion or duration of time (id. at 5---6). Appellant argues that this finding is erroneous both because Y abu' s electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection transistor 100 is not a sensor component and because this ESD transistor is not operable to supply a current proportional to a load current flowing through the load current component (Appeal Br. 4--8). In particular, Appellant contends that the Examiner applies an erroneous construction to the terms, "sensor component," as used in the claims consistent with the Specification (id. at 4-- 5). Appellant urges that Yabu's ESD device is not a sensor because it is not an electronic component designed to detect events or changes in its environment and send corresponding information to other electronics (id. at 5). In addition, Appellant contends that Yabu's ESD device is not operable to supply a current proportional to a load current because this device responds to an ESD event by directing such ESD current to the reference terminal (id. at 7). Appellant urges that no reasonable construction of "current proportional to a load current" includes "the sudden flow of electricity caused by an ESD event or the discharge of such a sudden flow of electricity" (id.). 4 Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Although the Examiner finds Yabu's ESD device 100 is a sensor component operable to supply a current proportional to a load current, this finding is based on several erroneous interpretations of claim limitations. To begin, we construe "proportional" as used in the claims to mean "having the same or a constant ratio."6 This construction is consistent with the Specification which teaches that a current sensor supplies a current proportional to the load current, wherein the sensor transistor is substantially smaller, e.g., a factor of 1000- 10,000 smaller than the load transistor and whose current is smaller than the load transistor ideally by the geometrical ratio of the active areas of the two transistors (Spec. ,r 3). In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a construction that is "beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality of the written description"). Yabu fails to disclose any relationship, let alone a proportional relationship, between the load current provided to load component 120 and the ESD current supplied to reference terminal 112. Indeed, there is no reasonable basis to expect an ESD current to have any proportional relationship with Yabu's load current. Moreover, Yabu's ESD device is not reasonably interpreted to be a sensor component. As defined by Appellant, and not disputed by the Examiner, a sensor is "an electronic component, module, or subsystem designed to detect events or changes in its environment and send corresponding information to other electronics" (Appeal Br. 5). While Yabu's ESD device is activated when a surge or ESD current flows to the 6 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportional, last visited October 3, 2018. 5 Appeal2018-003238 Application 14/709,583 device such that the device arguably detects the surge, Yabu's ESD device is designed to dissipate this current to reference terminal 112, not send corresponding information to other electronics. There is no indication that reference terminal 112 may reasonably be interpreted to be other electronics, especially since it appears that this terminal is either a ground terminal or a power supply terminal only (see Yabu ,r 59). Because the Examiner relied on the erroneous finding that Y abu teaches a sensor component operable to supply a current proportional to a load current flowing through the load current component in support of both the anticipation and obviousness rejections of claim 1 based on Yabu, we do not sustain either rejection. In addition, the Examiner does not rely on Challa to remedy this deficiency in rejecting dependent claims 5, 6, and 8- 10. Accordingly, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection over the combination of Yabu and Challa. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3---6, and 8-10 is reversed. REVERSED 6