Ex Parte Ivanov et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

14814345 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/814,345 07/30/2015
23494 7590 03/25/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mikhail Valeryevich Ivanov
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.
TI-73448A 1436
EXAMINER
LE,SONT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKHAIL VALERYEVICH IVANOV,
SIVA RAGHURAM PRASAD CHENNUP ATI,
and VIOLA SCHAFFER
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345 1
Technology Center 2800
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 While the Office Action Summary indicates claim 25 stands rejected (see
Final Act. 1 ), the prosecution history includes no rejection or analysis of
claim 25. Accordingly, the status of claim 25 as being rejected is summarily
reversed. We further note that the prosecution history indicates no rationale
for the objection of claims 1-25 that appears on the Office Action Summary.
See Final Act. 1.
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to sensing
current in a bus bar or other conductor using one or more circular magnetic
sensors or multiple magnetic sensors disposed on a substrate in a pattern
surrounding a longitudinal path within the outer periphery of the conductor.
(Abstract.)
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a conductor having a longitudinal body and an outer periphery
circumscribing the longitudinal body, the conductor
defining a recess protruding from the outer periphery into
the longitudinal body; and
an integrated circuit including:
a magnetic sensor adapted for placement in the recess of
the conductor, the magnetic sensor having a
sensing direction traversing across the longitudinal
body of the conductor, the magnetic sensor
configured to generate a sensing signal upon
sensing a magnetic field along the sensing
direction; and
a sensor interface coupled with the magnetic sensor to
receive the sensing signal, the sensor interface
configured to generate an output signal based on
the sensing signal.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-14, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2012/0086444
Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2012) (hereinafter "Chen"). (Final Act. 4.)
2
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Romero et al. (US 2014/0225598 Al,
pub. Aug. 14, 2014) (hereinafter "Romero"). (Final Act. 10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen and Popovic et al. (US 5,942,895, iss. Aug.
24, 1999) (hereinafter "Popovic"). (Final Act. 11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 19-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Popovic. (Final Act. 13.)
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Popovic, and Romero. (Final Act. 16.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Chen discloses the
independent claim 1 limitations,
a conductor having a longitudinal body and an outer periphery
circumscribing the longitudinal body, the conductor
defining a recess protruding from the outer periphery into
the longitudinal body; and
an integrated circuit including:
a magnetic sensor adapted for placement in the recess of
the conductor, .... ; and
a sensor interface coupled with the magnetic sensor to
receive the sensing signal, the sensor interface
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 15, 2018 ("App. Br."); the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 14, 2017 ("Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 12, 2018("Ans."), for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345
configured to generate an output signal based on
the sensing signal;
and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claim 10. (App.
Br. 7-10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-17), and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 2-7.) Except where noted, we concur with the applicable
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the
following.
In finding Chen discloses the claim 1 limitations at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure of an integrated current sensor, including a
Hall effect sensor provided in the form of an integrated circuit, with the
sensor die resting approximately in the center of the air gap. (Final Act.
4--5; Ans. 2-5; Chen Figs. 1 and 4 ,r,r 46, 50, 49.)
Appellants argue that in Chen,
the first notch 18a does not protrude into the longitudinal body.
Instead, the first notch 18a aligns along the outer periphery of
the conductor without extending into the longitudinal body.
Thus, Chen fails to disclose at least "a conductor having a
longitudinal body and an outer periphery circumscribing the
longitudinal body, the conductor defining a recess protruding
from the outer periphery into the longitudinal body."
4
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345
(App. Br. 7-8, citing Fig. 1.) Appellants further contend "Chen inevitably
fails to disclose 'a magnetic sensor adapted for placement in the recess of
the conductor'" and that "leads 15 and the Hall element are not incorporated
into a single 'integrated circuit."' (App. Br. 8.)
that:
We do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
whole item 16 (as shown in fig. 1 of Chen) is a conductor
which includes 16a, 16d, 16e, 16g and 16f. Therefore, the
conductor 16 of Chen with a recess 18 which is recessed from
conductor portion 16d to 16e and therefore recess 18 is
protruding from the outer periphery of 16d and 16e into the
longitudinal body of conductor 16.
(Ans. 4--5.) As notch 18a is recessed from the outer periphery of tabs 16d
and 16e, conductor 16 "defin[ es] a recess protruding from the outer
periphery into the longitudinal body" as required by the claim.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that "Fig. 1 shows the
integrated circuit 12 which is a Hall sensor containing a sensor die 14 having
a Hall 14a all encapsulated with an electrically insulating material" (Ans. 5,
citing ,r 49), and that:
Fig. 4 shows the integrated circuit 12 which is [a] Hall sensor
that includes a sensor interface ( combination of dynamic offset
cancellation circuit 170, amplifier 172, filter 174, output driver
17 6, temperature compensation circuit 180, quiescent output
voltage ( Ovo) circuit 182, trim control circuit 184) for
processing the output signal of the Hall Effect element 14a.
(Ans. 5.) We note that Chen expressly discloses that the "block diagram of
circuitry [ shown in Fig. 4] can be included in the current sensor[] of Fig. 1."
(Chen ,r 20.) Upon substitution of Hall effect sensor 12 shown in Fig. 4 into
the device of Fig. 1, Hall effect sensor 12 is an integrated circuit, and
5
Appeal2018-006018
Application 14/814,345
"includes the sensor die 14 and leads 15" (Chen ,r 72, describing Fig. 4), and
further includes a sensor interface, placed within the recess of the conductor.
We see no error in the Examiner's detailed findings, and Appellants
fail to challenge the Examiner's findings in the Reply. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, as well as
independent claim 19 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20-24 not
argued separately. See App. Br. 9-10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 25 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6