Ex Parte BakerDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 25, 200911112579 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM BAKER ____________ Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: August 25, 2009 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s claimed invention relates to the regulation of the flow of current through a current path of a current regulator using a measurement of the regulator temperature (Spec. ¶ [0001]). The instant claims are directed to such a temperature controlled current regulation device which uses an Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 2 analog differential between a base regulation temperature and a measured operating temperature to facilitate regulation. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A temperature controlled current regulation device, comprising: an interface controller; a temperature controlled current regulator including a current path operably integrated with the interface connector; and wherein the temperature controlled current regulator is operable to facilitate a regulation of a flow of a current through the current path at base regulation temperature as a function of an analog differential between the base regulation temperature and a measured operating temperature indicative of the flow of the current through current path. The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show unpatentability: Orban US 4,513,238 Apr. 23, 1985 Wang US 6,404,169 B1 Jun. 11, 2002 King US 6,922,039 B2 Jul. 26, 2005 Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Orban. Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wang. Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by King. Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 3 Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Orban. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over King and Orban. ISSUES Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejections are in error because the Examiner is applying references that describe a digital differential between two analog variables, while the claims are drawn to an analog differential between two variables (Br. 16-17). Appellant argues that Orban, Wang and King all teach switching based on a digital differential and any modification of those references to provide for an analog differential would improperly change their principles of operation (Br. 18-19, 21-22, 24-26). The Examiner finds that Appellant’s independent claims are directed to regulation that is not recited to be digital or analog, only that the regulation is a function of an analog differential between temperatures (Ans. 10). Since temperatures are analog values, any regulation that the circuits in the cited references perform will be a function of an analog differential, even if some components of the device act in a digital manner (Id.). The Examiner also finds that all of the cited references - Orban, Wang, King - disclose regulation of current as a function of an analog differential (Ans. 11-12, 14- 15, 17-18). Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 4 Thus, the sole issue arising from the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner is: Has Appellant shown reversible error in that Orban, Wang, and King all fail to teach or suggest regulation of a flow of a current “as a function of an analog differential between the base regulation temperature and a measured operating temperature” as recited in the independent claims? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The instant Specification details devices for the regulation of the flow of current through a current path of a current regulator using a measurement of the regulator temperature (Spec. ¶ [0001]). A temperature controlled current regulating device includes an interface connector and a temperature controlled current regulator having a current path CP1 (Spec. ¶ [0020]; Fig. 1). The flow of the current may be regulated as a function of an analog differential between the base regulation temperature and the measured operating temperature (Spec. ¶ [0027]). 2. Orban discloses a switch which switches the charging circuit from the fast to the slow charge rate upon reaching a predetermined temperature, wherein this is determined when a resistor (36) heats up due to a current flow (Col. 3, l. 51 – col. 4, l.16; Fig.). 3. Wang discloses an auto-controller using a thermo-control technology, where a resistor generates heat when a predetermined current flows through it, a thermo sensor positioned adjacent to the resistor detects a reference temperature, and a battery charger is switched off when the reference temperature is above a control temperature (Abs.; Fig. 3). Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 5 4. King discloses a dynamic timer circuit having a current controlled oscillator in communication with a transistor. A temperature generated by the transistor is regulated and causes the oscillator to slow down to increase the maximum change time (Abs.; col. 4, ll. 3-40; Fig. 1). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the specification states the meaning that a term in the claim is intended to have, the claim is examined using that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's invention and its relation to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 6 ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the rejections have been made in error because the Examiner is applying references that describe a digital differential between two analog variables, while the claims are drawn to an analog differential between two variables (Br. 16-17). Appellant continues that Orban, Wang, and King all teach switching based on a digital differential (Br. 18-19, 21-22, 24-26). We cannot agree with Appellant’s argument. All of the independent claims recite, in part, that the current regulation occurs “as a function of an analog differential between the base regulation temperature and a measured operating temperature.” The Examiner is correct in identifying that temperatures are analog values, and all of the cited references determine a difference between a measured temperature and a reference temperature of some sort (FF 2-4). That difference will be an analog difference, within the meaning of that term in the independent claims. What the individual circuits perform thereafter varies, but, as the Examiner has pointed out, the independent claims do not recite digital regulation or analog regulation (Ans. 10). The regulation may be binary in operation, but that does not mean that the determined differential was digital. As such, we agree with the Examiner that all of the cited references - Orban, Wang, King - disclose regulation of current as a function of an analog differential (Ans. 11-12, 14-15, 17-18). Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument to be compelling. Additionally, with respect to the rejections of the dependent claims, Appellant provides no further arguments other than repeating what those dependent claims recite (Br. 18-19, 21-22, 24-26). However, a statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an Appeal 2008-005975 Application 11/112,579 7 argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting the dependent claims for the reasons indicated by the Examiner and for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 as anticipated by Orban, claims 6-9 as anticipated by Wang, claims 11-15 as anticipated by King, claim 10 as rendered obvious over Wang and Orban, and claim 16 as rendered obvious over King and Orban, is affirmed. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 before us on appeal is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED KMF cc: Cardinal Law Group Suite 2000 1603 Orrington Avenue Evanston, IL 60201 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation