Ex Parte Carvalho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

13446555 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018)

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.
13/446,555 04/13/2012 Neville CARVALHO 10006.005400 (A03887) 5462
45634 7590
Compass IP Law PC
Lawrence M. Cho
4804 NW Bethany Blvd
Ste 1-2 #237
Portland, OR 97229
02/09/2018 EXAMINER
LEE, PAUL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2018 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):
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
admin@compassiplaw.com
lawrence@compassiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEVILLE CARVALHO, TIM TRI HOANG, and
SERGEY SHUMARAYEV1
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1—4, 6—11, 17—22, and 25 as
anticipated by Philpott (US 6,226,562 Bl, issued May 1, 2001) and under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 5, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Philpott in
view of Singh et al. (US 2013/0049797 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013)
(“Singh”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Altera Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method of calibrating analog circuitry within an
integrated circuit that comprises the steps of “booting up” and using a
“microcontroller” (independent claims 1 and 25) wherein the step of booting
up may include “loading boot code from a programmer object file to
memory of the microcontroller and resetting the microcontroller” (dependent
claim 2). Appellants also claim a system corresponding to the above-
described method (remaining independent claim 17).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 2, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of calibrating analog circuitry within an integrated
circuit, the method comprising:
booting up a microcontroller that is embedded in the integrated
circuit;
sending a reset control signal to reset an analog circuit in the
integrated circuit;
monitoring a response signal of the analog circuit by the
microcontroller;
determining a calibration parameter for the analog circuit based on the
response signal; and
configuring the analog circuit using the calibration parameter.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein booting up the microcontroller
comprises loading boot code from a programmer object file to memory of
the microcontroller and resetting the microcontroller.
Appellants present arguments regarding claims 1 and 2 (App. Br. 7—
10) and rely upon these arguments in contesting the rejections of remaining
claims 3—11 and 17—25 {id. at 9-13). Accordingly, these remaining claims
will fall if the arguments concerning claims 1 and 2 are not persuasive.
2
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons given in the
Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that the “booting up” and “microcontroller”
limitations of claim 1 are satisfied by Philpott’s disclosures regarding a
generic calibration circuit 12 (Final Action 2—3). Appellants argue that the
generic calibration circuit 12 is designed specifically for calibration in
contrast to a microcontroller which relies on loading and executing
instruction code to determine its functions and purpose (App. Br. 7—8) and
that the Philpott disclosures cited by the Examiner do not even mention a
microcontroller, “much less booting up of a microcontroller” {id. at 9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons fully detailed
by the Examiner in the Response to Argument section of the Answer (Ans.
2—10). In this regard, we emphasize the Examiner’s finding that the mode
control 54 and logic flow diagram 80 of Philpott’s calibration circuit 12
establish that the calibration circuit performs the function of a
microcontroller by relying on loading and executing instruction code {id. at
4—8 (citing Philpott disclosures in Figs. 3^4 and cols. 4—5)). We further
emphasize the Examiner’s finding that the claim phrase “booting up” can be
interpreted to mean “starting up” and that the output of control signals and a
calibration value by Philpott’s calibration circuit evinces that the circuit (i.e.,
microcontroller) must be booted or started up {id. at 9 (citing Philpott col. 3,
11. 1-12)).
In reply, Appellants contend that “the inclusion of Mode Control
circuit 54 in the Generic Calibration Engine 12 teaches against the Generic
Calibration Engine 12 being a microcontroller . . . because, if the Generic
Calibration Engine 12 were a microcontroller, then a separate mode control
circuit would not be needed” (Reply Br. 4).
3
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
Contrary to the premise of Appellants’ contention, Philpott’s mode
control circuit 54 is not a “separate” circuit but rather an integral part of
calibration circuit 12. Philpott col. 4,11. 35—37, 47—50, col. 4,1. 61—col. 5,1.
6. For this reason, the contention lacks convincing merit.
With respect to the Examiner’s previously discussed finding on page 9
of the Answer concerning the “booting up” limitation of claim 1, Appellants
argue “[t]here is no reasonable interpretation where sending out control
signals from logic in the generic calibration circuit 12 reads on booting up a
microcontroller” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellants seemingly misperceive the Examiner’s position regarding
the “booting up” limitation. The Examiner does not advocate that sending
out control signals results in booting up the microcontroller (i.e., calibration
circuit) as Appellants suggest. Rather, the Examiner finds that the capability
of the calibration circuit to send out control signals evinces that the
microcontroller (i.e., calibration circuit) must be booted or started up (Ans.
9).
As for the Examiner’s finding that Philpott’s disclosures regarding
memory blocks 68 anticipate claim 2 (Final Action 3), Appellants argue that
“[t]he memory block load signal in Philpott merely loads data into a memory
block . . . [without specifying] what data is loaded . . . [whereas] the claim
term ‘loading boot code” refers more specifically to loading the initial set of
instructions for the microcontroller to perform” (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner responds by finding that Philpott’s loading of N-bit
load signal 71 to memory blocks 68 of the calibration circuit satisfies the
claimed step of loading boot code to memory of the microcontroller,
particularly in light of the teaching that load signal 71 indicates which block
and/or blocks are to be loaded with the current calibration value (Ans. 10—11
4
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
(citing Philpott col. 4,11. 32-42)). In this latter regard, the Examiner
emphasizes that “[t]he load signal [71] can be considered as the simplest
form of a ‘boot code’ to instruct the initialization of the generic calibration
circuit [12] prior to sending out the calibration value” {id. at 11).
As reply, Appellants argue that “there is no reasonable interpretation
where the memory blocks 68 represent ‘memory of the microcontroller’”
and that “there is no reasonable interpretation where boot code is loaded
from the memory blocks 68 to the generic calibration circuit 12” (Reply Br.
5)-2
The deficiency of Appellants’ arguments is that they do not address
with any reasonable specificity, and therefore do not show error in, the
detailed findings made by the Examiner on page 11 of the Answer
explaining why the claimed step of loading boot code to memory of the
microcontroller is satisfied by Philpott’s step of loading N-bit load signal 71
to memory blocks 68 of calibration circuit 12. For example, the Reply Brief
contains no response at all to the Examiner’s previously mentioned findings
that load signal 71 indicates which block and/or blocks are to be loaded with
the current calibration value and concomitantly that the load signal can be
considered a boot code initializing the calibration circuit prior to sending out
the calibration value (Ans. 11).
2 Appellants also present new arguments directed to the claim 2 recitations
“programmer object file” and “resetting the microcontroller” (Reply Br. 5—
6). However, Appellants do not even attempt to show good cause why the
new arguments concerning these recitations were not raised in the Appeal
Brief. Therefore, we will not consider these new arguments for purposes of
the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(c)(2).
5
Appeal 2016-006421
Application 13/446,555
For the reasons expressed above and given by the Examiner,
Appellants fail to show error in the finding that representative claims 1 and 2
are anticipated by Philpott.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6