Ex Parte Baker

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2009

11112579 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2009)

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