Ex Parte 7272021 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2014

95001206 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014)

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. 95/001,206 08/19/2009 7272021 X43169 6964 7055 7590 04/10/2014 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ MURATA MANUFACTURING Co., LTD. Requester v. SYNQOR, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2014-001167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 1 Patent No. US 7,272,021 B2 2 Technology Center 3900 ____________________ Before JAMES T. MOORE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Patent Owner SynQor appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (2002) from the rejection of claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21-27, 29-31, 39 and 45-47 as set forth in the Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”) mailed 1 Filed by Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd., on July 14, 2009. 2 Issued September 18, 2007 to Martin Schlecht et al. and assigned to SynQor, Inc. (the “’021 patent”). The ‘021 patent issued from Application 11/407,699, filed April 20, 2006. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 2 September 2, 2011. Requester Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. filed a Respondent Brief on March 7, 2013. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on July 1, 2013, which incorporated the RAN by reference. The Patent Owner filed a Rebuttal Brief on August 1, 2013. Oral argument was conducted before a panel of this Board on March 19, 2014 in a combined hearing for Reexamination Proceeding Appeals 2014-001167 and 2014- 001173. A transcript of the proceedings will be made of record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315. We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21-27, 29-31, 39 and 45-47. Much litigation has occurred concerning this and related patents. The Patent Owner observes that the Federal Circuit “upheld the District Court’s decision finding validity of all challenged claims of the ‘021 patent.” 3 The Requester was a defendant in the civil action, styled SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al., Docket No. 2:07-CV-497 (E.D. Tex.); see also SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 709 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The District Court can find claims “not invalid” on those grounds raised, but the issue presently faced upon the record of this reexamination proceeding appeal is different; more specifically, whether the challenged claims are patentable based upon the evidence before this panel. To the extent the evidence relied upon during litigation, decisions of the District Courts and Federal Circuit, and other panels of this Board are informative or persuasive, we have considered them as such. 3 Patent Owner Rebuttal Brief 1, hereinafter “PO Reb. Br. 1.” Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 3 At this stage, the Examiner has concluded that the claims are not patentable, and it lies with the Appellant Patent Owner to argue otherwise persuasively. The Patent Owner raises 16 separate factual issues for review and 19 separate legal issues for our review, claiming error in the outcome. PO App. Br. 7-8. In the interests of special dispatch, we address herein only those we find dispositive of this appeal, although we have reviewed and considered all. The ’021 patent concerns power conversion. The claims generally describe a two-stage direct current to direct current power conversion system that has two separate stages: one for isolation and one for the actual voltage conversions needed. The combination of these separate stages is said to provide improved efficiency, size, and cost. PO App. Br. 3. Claim 1 is representative, and reproduced below, with paragraphing added for the sake of clarity. 1. A power converter system comprising: a normally non-regulating isolation stage comprising: a primary winding circuit; a secondary winding circuit coupled to the primary winding circuit, the secondary winding circuit comprising a secondary transformer winding in series with a controlled rectifier having a parallel uncontrolled rectifier, the secondary winding circuit providing a normally nonregulated output of the isolation stage; and a control circuit which controls duty cycle of the primary winding circuit, the duty cycle causing substantially uninterrupted flow of power Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 4 through the primary and secondary winding circuits during normal operation; and a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages, each receiving the nonregulated output of the isolation stage and regulating a regulation stage output. Figure 5 of the ’021 patent, reproduced below, is instructive in a generic sense of how the claimed invention works. Figure 5 is a block diagram of a circuit as claimed. As illustrated above, the first stage is an isolation stage which occurs first in the flow of power from a higher voltage source. It can, but need not necessarily, step up or step down the voltage to an intermediate voltage. In the illustrated embodiment, a 48 volt source is stepped down to a 12 volt output, but is unregulated. For the uninitiated, an unregulated power supply Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 5 has a performance characteristic of “droop”, where the voltage declines as a result of increases in output current. In exchange for this less than perfect voltage in the intermediate bus, an efficiency gain is achieved. ’021 Patent, 4:34-49. The voltage is then fed to multiple regulating transformers which have a regulated output. While the concept seems simple in the general sense, control of the stages appears important to avoid destructive voltage levels. Id. 5:31-33. EVIDENCE OF RECORD The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: White US 4, 293,902 October 6, 1981 Sutton US 4,586,119 April 29, 1986 Boertzel US 4,855,858 August 8, 1989 Japanese Patent Application March 12, 1993 Publication No. H05-64446 (“JP ‘446”) Steigerwald US 5,274,539 December 28, 1993 Steigerwald US 5,377,090 December 27, 1994 Schlecht US 5,999,417 December 7, 1999 Japanese Patent Application September 9, 2004 Publication No. 2004-254393 (“JP ‘393”) Abraham I. Pressman, Switching and Linear Power Supply Power Converter Design, Hayden Book Company, New Jersey (1977). Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 6 John G. Kassakian & Martin F. Schlecht, High-Frequency High-Density Converters for Distributed Power Supply Systems, Proc. of the IEEE, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 362-376 (April, 1988). Constance C. Heath, The Market for Distributed Power Systems,Proc. of the Sixth Annual Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, pp. 225-229, (March 10-15, 1991). Bob Mammano, Distributed Power Systems, Unitrode Corporation (April, 1993). Enrique de al Cruz et al., Analysis of Suitable PWM Topologies to Meet Very High Efficiency Requirements for on Board DC/DC Converters in Future Telecom Systems, 15 th Annual Telecommunications Energy Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 207-214 (September 27-30, 1993). J.A. Cobos & J. Uceda, Low Output Voltage DC/DC Conversion 0-7803- 1328-3/94, IEEE, 1994 J. Uceda & J.A. Cobbs, Supplying Power at Low Voltage (3.3V), Proc. of the 1995 First IEEE International Caracas Conference on Devices, Circuits, and Systems, pp. 244-251, December 12-14, 1995 Brian Narveson, How Many Isolated DC-DC’s Do You Really Need? Proc. of the Eleventh Annual Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition, Vol. 2, pp. 692-695, March 3-7, 1996 THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 31, 39, 45 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by JP ’393. II. Claims 16, 22-27, 29, 30 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP ‘393 in view of Schlecht. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 7 III. Claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 39, and 45-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos, and White. IV. Claims 22, 23, 25, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos, White, and Mammano. V. Claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24-26, 30, 31, 39, and 45-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, and Boertzel. VI. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Heath. VII. Claim 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Narveson. VIII. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Uceda. IX. Claims 1, 9, 15, 25, 31, 39, 45, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, and Sutton. X. Claims 16 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cobos. XI. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Pressman. XII. Claims 22, 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cruz. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 8 GENERAL ISSUES What is the proper priority to be accorded the ’021 Patent? The Examiner has concluded that the proper date is the application filing date of April 20, 2006, whereas the Appellant Patent Owner asserts January 23, 1996, the effective filing date of U.S. Patent No. 5,999,417 (the ’417 patent), is the proper date. The Patent Owner’s date would remove two references from those asserted in the rejections by the Examiner. Are the cited references properly combinable? The Patent Owner asserts technical issues which render them unsuitable for combination; the Requester states the issues would be easily resolved by one of ordinary skill in the art. Is the evidence of secondary considerations sufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness which may exist? The Patent Owner relies heavily on the litigation evidence. The Requester principally questions its nexus to the claimed invention. I. The Rejection of Claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 31, 39, 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by JP ’393. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 42-60. RAN 9. JP ’393 is said to describe a direct current to direct current converter circuit as claimed. A preliminary issue to be resolved is the priority to be accorded to the ’021 patent. The Appellant Patent Owner claims it is entitled to priority to U.S. Application No. 09/012,475. PO Reb. Br. 1. The Examiner’s position is that: Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 9 Claim 1 of the '021 patent recites the combination of features of "a normally non-regulating isolation stage" and “a plurality of non- isolating regulation stages." The '309 family discloses the "normally non-regulating" aspect of the feature of "a normally non-regulating isolation stage." The '190 family discloses the plurality of "non- isolating regulation stages." However, the combination of features was not disclosed together until the filing of [the] '699 application. Accordingly, claim 1 of the '021 patent is not entitled to a filing date earlier than the filing date of the '699 application of April 20, 2006. RAN at 17. The Examiner’s position appears to be adopted from the Requester in the Request, at page 16. The Patent Owner contends that the ’417 patent describes DC/DC power converters which have an isolation stage and a regulation stage, citing both Figure 1 and the description at Column 4, lines 25-33, reproduced below. PO Reb. Br. 2. FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a DC-DC converter that represents one embodiment of the invention. It shows a two stage converter structure where the power first flows though one stage and then through the next. One stage provides the regulation function and the other provides the electrical isolation and/or step-down (or step-up) function. In this embodiment the regulation stage is situated before the isolation stage, but this ordering is not necessary for the invention. The ’417 Patent 4:24-33. Figure 1 is reproduced below: Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 10 Figure 1 is a block diagram of a circuit embodiment The Patent Owner also points to column 14, line 44-49 of the ’417 patent as describing the claimed subject matter: In some situations, it may be desirable to place the isolation stage first in the power flow, and to have the regulation stage follow. For example, when there are many outputs sharing the total power, the circuit might be configured as one isolation/step-down (or step-up) stage followed by several DC-DC switching or linear regulators. The ’417 Patent 14:44-49 It appears to us that at least column 14 of the ’417 patent describes a first isolation stage followed by a plurality of switching DC regulators. A fair reading of the description is that the isolation stage provides isolation (and does not provide the regulating function), and the other stage provides regulation, but not isolation. The crux of the issue raised by the Requester is that “normally non- regulating” must also include the ability to vary the duty cycle of the circuit’s switches during abnormal operations, which it asserts would then be broader than the disclosure of the ’417 patent. Request at 17. This contention appears to arise from multiple statements found in the ’021 patent concerning non-normal operations, including that “The duty cycle of the primary winding circuit may be reduced to cause freewheeling periods in other than normal operation. Duty cycle might be reduced during the startup or to limit current and may be a function of sensed current.” The ’021 Patent 2:19-23. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 11 The Requester also cites multiple other locations within the specification discussing particular embodiments within the detailed description. More specifically, it references column 4, lines 54-64 of the ’021 patent where a very specific embodiment of a pulse width modulator control chip changes duty cycle in response to an excessive current on the primary side of the circuit. Request 17. The Requester then concludes that this type of regulation scheme must be supported in the priority document as regards the “normally non-regulating” language in the claim. Id. As an initial matter, we note that the words of the claims themselves define the scope of the invention, and are given their ordinary and customary meaning, unless the patentee has chosen to use terms in some other manner. Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, we are presently obligated to give claims undergoing examination their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). The Requester, and the Examiner in turn, appear to be reading requirements from specific embodiments into the claim, which requirements are not expressly stated. A normally non-regulating isolating stage would appear to be simply that: an isolation stage which under normal operation is non-regulating. That stage has a primary winding circuit, a secondary winding circuit and a control circuit for controlling duty cycle of the primary winding circuit, all as set forth in the claim. How or when it regulates in abnormal conditions is not recited in claim 1. Counsel for Requester made a valiant attempt during oral argument to assert that the claimed invention must necessarily include a decision point as Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 12 to what constituted non-normal operation and how it would be operated in non-normal conditions. We think that position requires reading too much of the specification into the claim language of claim 1, which the Patent Owner asserted during oral argument was there solely for antecedent basis purposes of claim 2 of the ’021 patent. We hold that importing requirements beyond the recited elements into the claim, and then requiring their presence in order to accord priority to the application which matured into the ’417 Patent, was in this instance unreasonable and constituted reversible error. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the inventor had possession of the claimed invention of claim 1 as early as the filing date of the ’417 Patent. Accordingly, this rejection, which depends on a reference which is an intervening reference to the filing date of the ’417 Patent, cannot be sustained and is reversed. II. The Rejection of Claims 16, 22-27, 29, 30 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP ’393 and the ’417 Patent. This rejection is reversed for the reason stated above in reversing the previous rejection. Neither reference is prior art for claim 1 of the instant patent. III. The Rejection of Claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 39, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ‘090, Cobos, and White. Even according the benefit of the filing date of the ’417 patent, the references applied in the remaining rejections constitute prior art as they were published more than one year prior to the earliest accorded filing date. We therefore proceed to the merits of these rejections. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 13 This rejection was proposed by the Requester and adopted by the Examiner without comment. RAN 10. The originally proposed rejection is found at Request page 71-105. In sum (only to frame the context of the discussion for ease of reference and not changing the basis of the rejection), Steigerwald ‘090 is relied upon for the description of a power converter system having an isolating stage and a plurality of separate unregulated voltage output lines. The rejection as adopted would modify Steigerwald ‘090 to substitute synchronous rectifiers from Cobos for the Steigerwald ‘090 diode rectifiers to improve efficiency, and add a current limiting circuit and sensor from White to prevent overcurrent damage. Request 73-80. The combination was concluded to be a substitution of known elements or generally to be “well-known” and obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Patent Owner takes exception to both the underlying factual findings and to the ultimate conclusion of obviousness. Among other issues, the Patent Owner asserts hindsight reconstruction, a failure to consider secondary considerations the proper date, and level of one of ordinary skill in the art. PO Brief 9-10. Turning to the evidence of record, Steigerwald ‘090 describes a distributed power system for providing multiple output voltages, including pulsed voltages, to a solid-state phased-array radar transmit/receive module. Desired is large energy storage capacitance for the pulses. Steigerwald, Abstract. A schematic diagram of the Steigerwold circuit is reproduced below. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 14 Figure 1 is a circuit diagram of a power circuit of Steigerwald ‘090 A power bus provides power to transformers T1 and T2 which are coupled to diode rectifiers, and then to voltage regulators 50, 51. The Requester (and the Examiner, presumably, by adoption) each find that this describes a non-regulating isolation stage and a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages. Request 72. Among what is missing from Steigerwald ’090 is the controlled rectifier in parallel with an uncontrolled rectifier and the control circuitry. The Requester (and again by adoption the Examiner) turns to Cobos to introduce controlled rectification at the isolation stage as controllable devices in low-output voltage converters are said to improve efficiency. Request 74. Cobos is a survey of available solutions to reduce both losses and size of on-board DC/DC power converters in distributed power systems Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 15 operating at low voltages. Abstract. This IEEE article from 1994 describes circuits including diodes and controlled rectifiers for DC/DC on board converters. Because of the high current densities at low voltage, the design of these converters is said to be complicated. Losses at rectifiers can reach 50%, and losses in general affect thermal management. Cobos 1676, Abstract. The Requester and Examiner then turn to White for the description of White of a control circuit to avoid overcurrent. Request 76. Figure 1 of White is illustrative of the control circuitry, and reproduced below. White Figure 1 is a block diagram of a control circuit. White uses pulse-width modulation to change a first voltage to a second voltage providing regulated power at the second voltage. White 2:36-41. A current-limiting control circuit terminates the output pulse when the current exceeds a predetermined value. Id. at 2:44-51. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 16 The Requester asserts that this is simple substitution within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Req. 62. The Patent Owner asserts that this grouping of references is a hindsight combination without consideration for the operational parameters of the combined references. PO Reb. Br. 12-13. The Patent Owner first asserts that the inclusion of an inductor in the conduction path of Steigerwald would thwart the objective of delivering instantaneous power changes. PO App. Br. 47. This is said to be so as the Steigerwald ‘090 circuit uses a MOSFET linear regulator to deliver rapid current change pulses to radar. Its design objective would be thwarted by a series inductor in its conduction path. Id. The Patent Owner further points to the prosecution history of Steigerwald ‘090 which specifically explains the rationale for the use of linear regulators rather than switching regulators as the need to minimize inductance. PO Reb. Br. 13. The Steigerwald ’090 patent describes a power module that provides multiple output voltages, including pulsed voltages, to a solid-state phased- array radar transmit/receive module. See, e.g. Steigerwald ’090, 1:42-62. The basic invention is a capacitance-multiplying converter, which is a DC/DC converter using a transformer to step a high input voltage down to a low output voltage. This lower output voltage is then fed through several series regulators to provide several regulated output voltages for the transmit/receive module. These regulators are generally thought of as linear regulators, dissipating extra power as waste. We are informed that this capacitance multiplying converter permits the placement of the large energy storage capacitor responsible for Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 17 delivering the pulsed load to the transmit/receive module on the high voltage input side of the converter as opposed to the low-voltage output side of the converter. A higher voltage capacitor can store its energy in a smaller volume than can a lower voltage capacitor. Steigerwald ’090 3:19-23. For the capacitance multiplier converter to perform its function efficiently, there is evidence in the record to support a conclusion that there must be negligible or no impedance in the path between the converter's input and the load. Patent Owner takes the position that any significant series impedance would cause the load voltage to drop significantly as the load draws its pulsed current waveform, and this significant drop is unacceptable for the load. PO Response, July 13, 2010 at 42. As evidentiary support, the Patent Owner points to Steigerwald ‘090’s Figure 1, which shows the schematic of the power module without any inductance shown. As further evidence, Patent Owner observes that Claim 1 of Steigerwald ’090 uses the phrase "by a path lacking inductors" seven times (elements a, d, e, h, i, j and k), and that the phrase appears four more times in claim 2 (the last four elements). Moreover, the transformer is said to have a "leakage inductance .... as low as possible because such leakage inductance, which appears as an equivalent series inductance .... is an impedance .... causing ... a voltage drop .... at the output." (Id., also citing Steigerwald ’539 patent, col. 3, line 65 - col. 4, line 4). Adding to this evidence, the Patent Owner points out that Steigerwald ’090 desires to keep the components small and therefore operates at a high frequency. Steigerwald ’090, 1:37 and 3:24. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 18 Cobos, the secondary reference, describes “optimization of the power topographies to take the maximum benefit from the rectification devices, including low voltage drop diodes, external driven and self-driven synchronous rectifier.” Cobos, Abstract. Among those discussed are controlled rectifiers and under certain circumstances they can provide efficiency gains. However, at the very least, the reference describes some of the careful consideration which must go into deciding which rectification scheme is right for a particular application. We therefore disagree with the Examiner and with the Requester that this is “simple substitution.” The Patent Owner further argues that if one were to substitute the Cobos synchronous rectifier circuits into Steigerwald ‘090 in order to gain efficiency, they would fail. According to the Patent Owner, the Steigerwald linear regulators would dissipate any energy saved by substituting controlled rectifiers for the Steigerwald ‘090 diodes. PO App. Br. 52. According to the Patent Owner, overall efficiency is important and linear regulators are usually quite inefficient. Id. citing Pressman 87-89. The Requester counters that one of ordinary skill would have known how to improve the efficiency of the Steigerwald ‘090, Cobos, and White combination. For example, one would have replaced the inefficient linear regulators with switching regulators. Resp. Br. 23. The Patent Owner notes, however, that it would not make sense to use switching regulators in Steigerwald ‘090 because its circuit arrangement is designed to deliver current pulses. Switching regulators would not permit the required current pulses to be provided. PO App. Br. 53. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 19 The Patent Owner argues that substituting the Cobos controlled rectifiers into Steigerwald ‘090 would also have been expected to add significant size and complexity to the circuit, and, therefore, doing so would have been against conventional wisdom at the time of the ’083 patent invention. Making the substitution would require extra control circuitry to create an appropriate driving waveform for the gates of the controlled rectifiers or a self-driven arrangement. PO. App. Br. 53. The Patent Owner points to Cobos at 1678 which suggests that external control circuitry would be expected to generate additional power losses, take up added space and cost more. Id. The Patent Owner also argues that a frequency incompatibility between Steigerwald ‘090 and Cobos would have dissuaded one of ordinary skill from making the substitution. PO App. Br. 55. Steigerwald ‘090 operates at a switching frequency in the range of 3-10 MHz (Steigerwald 3:23-29) while Cobos’ self-driven synchronous rectification topology has an upper limit of 1 MHz and its external driven scheme has an upper limit of 200 kHz. PO App. Br. 55(citing to Evidence App’x, Doc. No. A3 at 47-48 and A4 at 45). According to the Patent Owner, lowering the Steigerwald ’090 frequency renders it unfit for its purpose and the Cobos’ techniques cannot be implemented at higher frequencies. Id. We also note that the Dickens Declaration, paragraphs 10 and 11 provide evidentiary support that inductors would not be desired in the Steigerwald ’090 circuitry. This is so despite the prior reference in Steigerwald ’539 to using MOSFET regulators in a different arrangement. Dickens Declaration , paragraph 23. Moreover, there is an evidentiary Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 20 foundation for the conclusion that Steigerwald ’090 and Cobos use very different frequencies, Steigerwald to adjust the size for power compactness. Id. at paragraph 12 and 13. In sum, we agree with the Appellant Patent Owner that there are many incompatibilities and teachings away, which greatly lessen the strength of the case for a conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner does not address how one of ordinary skill would have dealt with these incompatibilities sufficiently. A complete review of the Examiner’s decision also requires that we examine the proffered evidence of secondary considerations. The Patent Owner contends that various documents and activities related to that litigation constitute objective evidence of non-obviousness. Arguments based on these documents relate to sales of infringing products, commercial success, long-felt need, industry praise, copying, acting against conventional wisdom and achieving unexpected results. PO App. Br. 21-47. In deciding questions of obviousness, we consider all four Graham factors including objective evidence of non-obviousness. A prima facie case made by the Examiner is not a conclusion on the ultimate issue of obviousness. The ultimate conclusion of obviousness is a legal conclusion to be reached after weighing all of the evidence on both sides. Apple Inc. v. ITC, 725 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Examiner appears not to have considered at least some of the evidence of secondary considerations. The rationale is reproduced below: Patent Owner's response is heavily relied [sic, reliant?] on litigation evidence, which might or might not be the same evidence as in the court since Patent Owner is relying on the court itself as evidence. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 21 Patent Owner has repeatedly referred to alleged conclusions of the trial witnesses, the jury, and the District Court Judge without providing underlying evidence that these conclusions are allegedly based on. It is noted that the jury's verdict is not evidence and as stated in MPEP 2686 that Court decision will have no binding effect on the examination of the reexamination unless it is a final Court holding of claim invalidity/unenforceability. RAN 14. The above makes it somewhat unclear as to which evidence the Examiner refused to consider or why. The Examiner did conclude that the evidence was not persuasive. Among its deficiencies, the evidence of secondary considerations (of all types) is said to be lacking nexus, and that any long felt need was satisfied by the prior art Narveson. RAN 18-19. We disagree with the blanket statement that this evidence cannot constitute informative or persuasive evidence. We first address the Requester’s contention that none of the evidence from the court proceedings should have been considered. Resp. Br. 8. According to the Requester: Appellant improperly attempts to gain entry of the Litigation evidence that includes Appellant's arguments but lacks a statement that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both as required by 18 U.S.C. §1001 and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon (§1001 statement), as required by MPEP §§715.04 and 716.02(g). See A96- A109 and A125-A127. If Appellant wanted the USPTO to consider the Litigation evidence, including, for example, evidence/testimony from Dr. Leeb and Mr. Reed, then Appellant should have followed proper USPTO procedures by submitting the evidence in a declaration with a §1001 statement. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 22 Resp. Br. 8. The Patent Owner disagrees, calling the evidence highly relevant, as the evidence was generally sworn testimony and submitted by an attorney registered to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. PO Reb. Br. 5-6. We note that a protective order in place during the litigation up to the time of the action closing prosecution may have kept some of the trial evidence from full and early consideration by the Examiner and withheld as confidential. PO Response to ACP at 4, 6, and 19. On balance, under these specific circumstances, the interests of justice suggest we look at the relevant portions of the evidence before the District Court and the Federal Circuit. We therefore exercise our discretion to take notice of them to the extent they are informative and persuasive. The ’021 Patent was asserted in SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 2:07-CV-497 (E.D. Tex.) against the Requester and others. After a jury trial, the Court enjoined the Defendants from infringement of the ’021 Patent. PO App. Br. 1. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a decision dated March 13, 2013, affirmed the decision of the Texas District Court. Appeal Nos. 2012-1069, -1070, -1071, and 1072. Additionally, the Federal Circuit denied the defendants' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc on May 16, 2013. The Federal Circuit also denied the defendant's Motion to Stay the Mandate on May 28, 20l3. The Mandate issued on May 30, 20l3, making the Decision final. PO Reb. Br. 1. The Patent Owner relied first upon commercial success evidence. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 23 Patent Owner argues that there is a nexus between the claims at issue and the objective evidence presented. PO App. Br. 18-19, 63. Requester argues that the objective evidence should not be considered and is not convincing because unregulated intermediate bus architecture is not recited in the claims. Resp. Br. 13. We have reviewed, inter alia, the technical documents A40-A82 which include data sheets for the various products found to infringe the ’021 patent. See especially also document A92, the jury verdict, which found that Murata contributed to or induced infringement of various claims of the ’021 patent at pages 22-25. We then turn to Murata’s QBC series product data sheets, documents A40-47. It is apparent that they describe products intended for configuration into a circuit such as that of claim 1and the other rejected claims. For example, QUS 40-096 describes an unregulated output isolated bus converter “for powering multiple downstream non-isolated point-of-load (POL) converters.” Document A47, page 1. They appear to be controlled such that they deliver a constant flow of power, i.e. 384 W at 48 V in, or 300 W at 38V in. (Id.). Our review of these documents, in conjunction with the District Court finding of infringement of claims 21 and 30 of the ’021 patent and the jury award of lost profits suggest that claim 1 and the other rejected claims are reasonably commensurate in scope with the products at issue in the trial. Claim 21 of the ’021 patent adds the limitation that the regulation stage be a down converter, and claim 30 adds the limitation that the regulation stage output is at a voltage level to drive logic circuitry. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 24 The fact that claim 1 and the other claims of the ‘021 Patent do not recite a particular set of words “intermediate bus architecture” does not persuade us of a lack of nexus between the instant claims and the ’497 litigation accused products. The Patent Owner next argues that objective evidence establishes commercial success of the claimed invention. PO App. Br. 25. The Requester argues that the commercial success achieved by the ’497 litigation defendants (including Requester) is not a result of the ’021 patent claims subject matter because unregulated intermediate bus architecture is taught by the prior art, especially Steigerwald ’090, Pressman, and JP’446. Resp. Br. 10. The Patent Owner argues that devices covered by the claims replaced previous architectures used in high-end computers and telecommunication equipment, and the number of units sold by the ’497 litigation defendants proves commercial success. The argument is supported by testimony from various sources, including Dr. Schlecht (who we recognize has an interest in this proceeding, but the number of 2 million units sold initially and 5 million through trial is largely unrefuted). See, Schlecht Declaration, Document A3, pages 2 et seq. Moreover, according to the Patent Owner, the ’497 litigation infringing products constitute substantially the entire market. PO App. Br. 27.Based on the evidence submitted at trial, it was established that the unregulated bus converters described in the defendants’ data sheets have no substantial non-infringing use other than to create infringing systems and that there are no suitable non-infringing alternatives to the infringing systems. On this basis, the jury awarded lost profits. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 25 We are unpersuaded by the Requester’s argument that the commercial success was due to the prior art disclosures of unregulated intermediate bus architecture, as argued to be done in Steigerwald ’090, Pressman, and JP’ 446. We have discussed why these pieces of art do not render the claims unpatentable elsewhere herein, and disagree with the conclusion that the prior art describes the claimed invention. Based on the above, we find that the commercial success described by Patent Owner provides objective indicia of non-obviousness. The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that there was no long-felt need in the industry for the ’021patent invention. PO App. Br. 37. We find that the Patent Owner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that, as early as 1991, it was recognized that distributed power architecture was becoming more unsuitable for applications requiring multiple "ultra low voltages" at "ultra high currents." (A3 at 19-22 quoting A14, A17, A29). Other contemporaneous publications confirmed that the need increased as lower voltage loads emerged, leading to more voltage rails that increased costs and reduced space for end-components. (A17). Narveson 96 (A29) acknowledged the problem, but he did not solve it (see Section VII.A.9), noting that his multi-stage design resulted in a significant loss of efficiency due to the "double conversion." (A29 at 1; A28 at 3). We therefore conclude there is evidence in the record that the invention of the instant claims satisfied a long-felt need. The Patent Owner also cites to evidence in the record that there is substantial evidence of copying, and whether the invention met with Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 26 disbelief or skepticism. PO App. Br. at 44, 46. That evidence is largely unrebutted. Accordingly, when making the final determination as to whether the instant claims are patentable, we consider the weight on the side of obviousness to be greatly diminished by the technical evidence presented by the Patent Owner. As to the secondary considerations, we consider the weight of them to be much greater than that accorded by the Examiner. As a consequence, we conclude that the evidence of record as a whole does not support the Examiner’s final conclusion that the subject matter of the instant claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. IV. The Rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos, White, and Mammano. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 105-110. RAN 10. It fails for the same reasons noted above, and we reverse this rejection. V. The Rejection of Claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24-26, 30, 31, 39, and 45- 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, and Boertzel. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 111-145. RAN 11. As noted in the Request, Pressman is a text book for undergraduate electrical engineers and power system designers. Pressman explains that various building blocks can be combined together to create a power converter system to satisfy a specific application's requirements. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 27 Request 111. The Requester then annotates Figure 3-4, a step block diagram, which follows, to illustrate the elements of the instant claims. Annotated Figures 3-3 and 3-4(B) of Pressman are shown below: Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 28 The Requester fashioned a drawing depicting an embodiment combining portions of Pressman Figure 3-3 and 3-4(B), reproduced below. The above-illustrated combined embodiment includes a leftmost block corresponding to the first two blocks of Pressman Figure 3-3, a central block corresponding to a portion of Pressman Figure 3-3 and a rightmost block corresponding to the rightmost portion of Pressman Figure 3-4(B). Kassakian is relied upon for the description of synchronous rectifiers, which are said to reduce effects of capacitance and drop over diode rectifiers. Request 117. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 29 The Patent Owner challenges Pressman itself, in that its description states expressly: The schemes of Figs. 3-3 and 3-4 can be used with only one transformer secondary winding and one filter capacitor to generate a multiplicity of different output voltages at high efficiency as shown in Fig. 3-4B . ... Also, this is possible only if all the outputs have a common output terminal. According to the Patent Owner, Pressman drew on elements from Figures 3-3 and 3-4(A) to create Fig. 3-4(B), replacing multiple secondaries with a single secondary, citing Pressman at 83. Moreover, the Patent Owner asserts that Pressman states the configuration is only possible with a single secondary winding, and that Pressman cannot make obvious what it expressly excludes. As noted by the Patent Owner, Pressman describes that after modifications to include only one transformer secondary, the result is the circuit of Figure 3-4(B). Figure 3-4(B) is a modified version of Figure 3- 4(A), but instead of multiple secondary windings shown in Figure 3-4(A), only one secondary winding and filter capacitor are used. PO Reb. Br. at 11. We therefore agree that Pressman does not suggest the Requester’s starting point for the combination of references. Furthermore, it is argued that Kassakian teaches the use of synchronous rectifiers only in a resonant topology. The Patent Owner points out that there is significant complexity of adapting such synchronous rectifiers to a square wave system such as described in Pressman. Id. at 15. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 30 We find that neither the Examiner nor the Requester have adequately explained how the particular modifications required to combine Pressman and Kassakian would fall within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. As a result, we conclude that the evidence of record does not establish a prima facie case for the obviousness of the claims so rejected. Even were a case to have been established on the evidence of record, the evidence of secondary considerations, as discussed above, would have overcome that case. We therefore reverse this rejection. VI. The Rejection of Claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Heath. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 145-147. RAN 11. As Boertzel and Heath do not cure the deficiencies of the underlying combination of Pressman and Kassakian, we likewise reverse this rejection. VII. The Rejection of Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Narveson. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 147-148. RAN 11. As Boertzel and Narveson do not cure the deficiencies of the underlying combination of Pressman and Kassakian, we likewise reverse this rejection. VIII. The Rejection of Claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Uceda. This Rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 149-150. RAN 12. As Boertzel and Uceda do not cure the deficiencies of the underlying combination of Pressman and Kassakian, we likewise reverse this rejection. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 31 IX. The Rejection of Claims 1, 9, 15, 25, 31, 39, 45, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, and Sutton. This Rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 150-176. RAN 12. In sum, JP ’446 is said to disclose an efficient and low noise power supply system including a transformer T1 connected to a DC power supply 1. The transformer T1 of JP ’446 is said to include a primary winding and a secondary winding. JP ’446 is further said to disclose that a rectifier circuit 7 including a plurality of rectifying diodes is connected to the secondary winding of the transformer T1, as shown in Figures 5 and 6 and discussed in Paragraphs [0013] and [0014]. Finally, JP ’446 is said to disclose that the output of the rectifier circuit 7 is connected to respective DC/DC converters 31-35, as shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraphs [0002] and [0003]. The DC/DC converters 31-35 of JP ’446 as said to act as non-isolating regulators. It is admitted in the Request, and as a consequence found by the Examiner, that JP ’446 does not teach synchronous rectification or the control circuit. Figures 5 and 6 of JP ’446 are, however, said to be modified to use the synchronous rectifiers of Steigerwald ’539 instead of diode rectifiers of the rectifier. JP ’446 is further modified to include a protective circuit similar to that of Sutton and including the current sensing transformer T2 of Sutton. The first modification is said to be a simple substitution to achieve improved efficiency. Request 158. The second modification is said to be motivated by a desire to have included a protective circuit similar to the protective circuit of Sutton in the power converter system of JP ’446 to Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 32 protect the switches 51, 52 of JP ’446 from being damaged by overcurrents flowing in the switches. Id. at 160. The Patent Owner takes immediate issue with the combination of references. It urges that JP ’446 teaches away from the substitution by stating that square wave converters are unusable in its system due to unacceptable noise that is difficult to remove. (SynQor’s Response to Non- Final Office Action, Document A3, at 67. The ’446 reference states, in several areas, that low noise is vital: " ... having .... low noise properties .... " (Abstract - Constitution) "This invention relates to a .... low-noise power supply system using a .....resonance power supply for the bulk power supply unit." (Field of Industrial Utilization; Paragraph 0001). "Furthermore, with normal switching regulators, there is a large amount of noise, and it is particularly difficult to reduce the bulk line noise." (Problems to be Solved by the Invention; Paragraph 0003). "The object of this invention is to ... reduce the line noise by using a .... low-noise .. : resonance power supply for the ACIDC converter. (Problems to be Solved by the Invention; Paragraph 0003). "This resonance power supply ... because the switching is performed at a completely zero-cross, the noise is low ... Moreover, ... the resonance operation ... makes it possible to realize further lowering of noise (line noise, radiation noise, and the like) ... " (Operation; Paragraph 0005). "Because of this, there is very little generation of harmful current noise." (Paragraph 0009). "The resonance power supply ... has not only the advantages of ... low noise ... " (Paragraph 0016). Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 33 " ... the voltage and current waveforms to a sine wave shape, so that the conversion operation can be expected with little line noise, radiation noise, and the like." (Paragraph 0016). " ... because the switching operation is performed at a completely zero cross, there is low noise ... " (Paragraph 0016). To achieve the low noise goal, Patent Owner urges that JP ’446 requires that both voltage and current be resonant sine waves at approximately the same frequency. Sinusoidal waves in this circuit are said to have long transitions, necessary because JP ’446 requires switching at "completely zero-cross points" of both voltage and current to reduce noise. Steigerwald ’539 is, on the other hand, said to teach a square wave current waveform. PO App Br. at 60. As this would introduce noise, it is urged that the combination is improper. Moreover, it is urged that the zero cross over points of JP ’446 would cause interruptions in the current flow across the windings, contrary to the requirement of the claims. Id. at 60. Finally, it is urged that the proposed combination of JP ’446 with the controlled rectifiers from Steigerwald ’539 would render JP ’446 inoperable, without substantial modifications to the circuit topology to prevent reverse current flow, which would be well beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Rep. Br. 16. More specifically, the Patent Owner states that the topologies shown in Figure 5 are capable of transferring energy in the reverse direction, that is, from the output to the input. MOSFETs are said to be able to conduct current in either direction when turned on, whereas a converter using a diode Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 34 rectifier cannot. During a sudden input-voltage drop or shutdown, it is possible for the self-driven rectifier MOSFET to start oscillating and pumping energy backwards, thus causing large current and voltage spikes at the rectifier MOSFETs. PO Rep. Br. 16 (citing Miftakhutdinov, Document A8, page 4-13). The Patent Owner observes that in JP ’446, the converter has a diode rectifier that does not allow current to flow in the reverse direction. The resonant action of the JP ’446 circuit during each half cycle of its operation requires the rectifier to permit the current flowing through it to go through one half cycle ring, and then stop when the current tries to change direction. The diode in the JP ’446 circuit does this automatically. Id. The Requester urges that none of these arguments is correct. First, it urges that even if a square waveform was used, there is no indication unacceptable noise would result, no power would flow, or that one of ordinary skill in the art could not control any reverse current which would occur. Reb. Br. 24. Looking to the evidence at a whole, one concept becomes clear as regards this technology. Dropping components into different circuits, especially those with specific frequency, control, and waveform requirements, is not as simple as the Requester would have us understand it to be. Review of the different treatises indicates that there are substantial choices to be made in selecting different types of components, with consequences to those choices. It is not a “simple” substitution, indeed the word “challenge” appears in the literature regarding low voltage distributed power supplies frequently. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 35 Although it is a closer question than the Patent Owner believes, we agree with the Patent Owner’s position that JP ’466’s stringent waveform requirements would dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from making the modification to JP ’446 as suggested in the request. Moreover, even were the evidence of record considered to favor unpatentability, the secondary considerations as discussed above would overcome that prima facie case. As such, we reverse this rejection. X. The Rejection of Claims 16 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 10s(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cobos. This Rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 177-179. RAN 12-13. As Cobos does not overcome the deficiencies of JP ’446 and Steigerwald ’539, we likewise reverse this rejection for the reasons stated above. XI. The Rejection of Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Pressman. This Rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 180-181. RAN 13. As Pressman does not overcome the deficiencies of JP ’446 and Steigerwald ’539, we likewise reverse this rejection for the reasons stated above. XII. The Rejection of Claims 22, 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cruz. This rejection was adopted from the Request, pages 181-190. RAN 13. As Cruz does not overcome the deficiencies of JP ‘446 and Steigerwald ’539, we likewise reverse this rejection for the reasons stated above. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 36 CONCLUSIONS We have carefully considered the evidence of record, including that of secondary considerations submitted by the Patent Owner. We also have considered the evidence submitted by the Requester and the findings and conclusions of the Examiner. We conclude that the ’021 patent is entitled to the priority date of the ’417 patent. We further conclude that a nexus exists between the claims under reexamination and the evidence of infringing products in the litigation. The weight of the objective evidence, combined with the teachings and descriptions in the references leading those of skill in the art away from the proposed combinations, and the technical difficulties in implementing the proposed combinations of references adopted from the Request by the Examiner, lead us to the conclusion that the claims at issue would not have been obvious to one of only ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The record does not establish that claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21-27, 29- 31, 39 and 45-47 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the effective date of the ’021 patent invention. We, therefore, do not sustain any of the anticipation or obviousness rejections of these claims. ORDER I. The rejection of claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 31, 39, 45 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by JP’393 is reversed. II. The rejection of claims 16, 22-27, 29, 30 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over JP ’393 in view of Schlecht ’417 is reversed. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 37 III. The rejection of claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 39, and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos and White is reversed. IV. The rejection of claims 22, 23, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos, White, and Mammano is reversed. V. The rejection of claims 1, 9, 15, 16, 21, 24-26, 30, 31, 39, and 45- 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, and Boertzel is reversed. VI. The rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Heath is reversed. VII. he rejection of Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Narveson is reversed. VIII. The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pressman, Kassakian, Boertzel, and Uceda is reversed. IX. The rejection of claims 1, 9, 15, 25, 31, 39, 45, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, and Sutton is reversed. X. The rejection of claims 16 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cobos is reversed. XI. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Pressman is reversed. Appeal 2014-01167 Reexamination Control 95/001,206 Patent No. 7,272,021 B2 38 XII. The rejection of claims 22, 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, Sutton, and Cruz is reversed. REVERSED ak Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC 1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20191 Third Party Requester: Joseph R. Keating Keating & Bennett, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive Suite 200 Reston, VA 20191