Ex Parte Casey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12122682 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/122,682 05/17/2008
24319 7590
Broadcom Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
09/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael J. Casey
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.
63506.US 9366
EXAMINER
KAPLAN VERBITSKY, GAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. CASEY,
IVOR G. BARBER, GREGORY S. WINN,
JULIE L. BEATTY, and DANIEL G. DEISZ
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1 and 21 of Application
12/122,682 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement, and claims 1-16 and 21 of Application 12/122,682 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (March 16, 2012). Appellants 1
1 The Brief identifies LSI Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1. It
appears that LSI Corporation subsequently assigned its interest in the '682
Application to Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE, Ltd.
Assignment recorded at Reel/Frame 035390/0388.
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Reduction in integrated circuit size has the undesirable side effect of
causing leakage of the transistor current, thereby increasing the integrated
circuit's power consumption. Spec. ,-r 3. The excess power consumption
raises the temperature of the semiconducting transistor junction, which can
reduce the integrated circuit's reliability. Id. i-fi-13--4. The '682 Application
describes methods and apparatus for measuring and capturing multiple on-
chip junction temperature and/or power supply voltage values and making
these labels available to a control system. Id. ,-r 1.
Claim 1 is representative of the '682 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
1 A . . . . +. . r1 • •
J_. £1 temperature mon1tor1ng c1rcu1t J_or an 1ntegrateu c1rcu1t on
a monolithic chip, the temperature monitoring circuit
compnsmg:
a temperature sensor disposed on the monolithic chip for
producing a signal dependent at least in part on the temperature
of the integrated circuit[;]
a system monitor disposed on the monolithic chip, the
system monitor comprising[:]
an input for receiving the signal,
logic for comparing the signal to a reference, and
circuitry for controlling leakage power of the
integrated circuit when the signal exceeds the reference[;]
and
2
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
electrically conductive traces for electrically connecting the
temperature sensor to the system monitor.
Br. 11 (Claims App.) (some indentation supplied).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1 as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Answer 5.
2. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, 2 Boerstler, 3 and
Zimlich.4 Answer 6.
3. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Zimlich and Jahagirdar. 5
Answer 9.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Ku. 6 Answer 11.
5. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and
Zvonar.7 Answer 12.
2 US 8,076,946 Bl, issued December 13, 2011.
3 US 7, 187 ,053 B2, issued March 6, 2007.
4 US 7,821,321 B2, issued October 26, 2010.
5 US 2007/0001694 Al, published January 4, 2007.
6 US 7,087,439 B2, issued August 8, 2006.
7 US 5,663,899, issued September 2, 1997.
3
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
6. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and
Kunst. 8 Answer 12.
7. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and
Girling.9 Answer 13.
8. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and
Tanaka. 10 Answer 14.
9. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Appellants'
admissions in the Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review filed
January 30, 2012. Answer 14, 20. 11
10. Claims 1-5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar and Boerstler.
Answer 15.
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Ku.
Answer 17.
8 US 6,008,685, issued December 28, 1999.
9 US 4,583,868, issued April 22, 1986.
10 US 2009/0010072 Al, published January 8, 2009.
11 The Examiner's Answer sets forth this ground of rejection twice. See also
Final Act. 9, 14. We, however, need only address it once.
4
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
12. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and
Zvonar. Answer 17.
13. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and
Kunst. Answer 18.
14. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and
Girling. Answer 19.
15. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and
Tanaka. Answer 19.
DISCUSSION
Enablement Rejection
Rejection 1. A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,-r l
enablement requirement if it allows those of ordinary skill in the art to make
and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See In re
Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du
Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, the Examiner rejected claims 1 and 21 as not enabled.
Answer 5. In particular, the Examiner concluded that these claims
contain[] subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to
which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and/ or use the invention.
Claim 1: It appears that the limitation "circuitry for controlling
leakage power of the integrated circuit when the signal
5
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Id.
exceeds the reference" has not been clearly described in the
specification, "the circuitry" has not been described.
Claim 21: It appears that the limitations of claim 21, i.e.,
"wherein the circuitry for controlling leakage power comprises
at least one of circuitry for adjusting a back bias to reduce a
threshold voltage of transistors of the integrated circuit, and
circuitry for reducing V dd to inactive logic blocks of the
integrated circuit" have not been clearly described in the
specification.
We reverse because the Examiner has not provided sufficient factual
findings and reasoning to support the legal conclusion of non-enablement.
Appellants' Specification states that "[ m ]any different methods of
controlling leakage power can be used, such as adjusting the back bias to
modify the threshold voltage, and deducting V dd from inactive logic blocks
while still retaining state voltage." Spec. i-f 18.
In rejecting claims 1 and 21, the Examiner cites this portion of the
Specification and states that "[i]t appears that that statement stands for the
fact that Applicant is using one of the known methods of controlling
[leakage power]." Answer 6. The Examiner, however, finds that the
Specification was not enabling: "[E]ven though the Applicant mentions
adjusting the back bias in the specification, the Applicant does not describe
a circuitry, as claimed, to perform said adjusting." Id. at 6; see also id. at
21 ("The claimed 'circuitry for controlling power leakage' has been neither
described nor shown in the drawings.").
Thus, the Examiner appears to be requiring a description of circuitry
that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as part of
an enabling disclosure. This heightened requirement is inconsistent with the
law. It is well established that "a patent need not teach, and preferably
6
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
omits, what is well known in the art." Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal
Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While this is a rule
of supplementation and not a substitute for an enabling disclosure, Streck,
Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2012), in this case, the Examiner appears to be requiring an express
description of known circuitry.
For an enablement rejection to be proper, the Examiner must explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art-having been told that known
methods for controlling power leakage could be used-would have had to
engage in undue experimentation to make and use an embodiment of the
subject matter of either claim 1 or claim 21. Here, the Examiner did not
meet this burden. 12
12 We note that the Examiner did not expressly address the Wands factors in
making this rejection. These factors, which are illustrative, not mandatory,
see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir.
1991)
include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the
amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or
absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5)
the state of the prior art, ( 6) the relative skill of those in the art,
(7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the
breadth of the claims.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In some cases, inclusion
of an express Wands analysis in the record can provide sufficient findings of
fact and reasoning to support the rejection. We express no opinion regarding
whether this is such a case.
7
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Obviousness Rejections
We begin by noting that Appellants' arguments with respect to
claim I-the only independent claim in the '682 Application-are presented
in a consolidated fashion. 13 See Appeal Br. 4---6.
Appellants argue that the combination of four references-Rosen,
Boerstler, Zimlich, and Jahagirdar---does not describe or suggest every
limitation of claim 1. Id. In particular, Appellants assert that
The concept of controlling leakage power based on temperature
is not found in any of the references. All of the references
acknowledge that temperature and leakage are related in some
way. At least one reference monitors a temperature. Some of
the references compare various things to a set point. But none of
the references take any steps to control the leakage. And
especially, none of the references try to control the leakage when
the temperature gets to a certain point.
Id. at 6.
Appellants' arguments are not convincing. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner provided detailed factual findings and set forth reasoning in
support of the conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable over either the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Zimlich (Rejection 2); the combination
of Jahagirdar and Zimlich (Rejection 3); or the combination of Jahagirdar
and Boerstler (Rejection 10). The Examiner also responded to Appellants'
consolidated argument. See Answer 22-23. In the face of the record created
by the Examiner, Appellants' generalized contention is insufficient to
persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1.
13 This approach is contrary to our rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(requiring appellants to present arguments "with respect to each ground of
rejection").
8
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Rejections 2 and 10. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 7 as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Zimlich.
Answer 6-9. The Examiner also rejected claims 1-5, 7, and 21 as
unpatentable over the combination of Jahagirdar and Boerstler. Id. at 15.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
for the reversal of the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 21. Appellants, however, present additional argument
with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 4. We discuss these arguments
below.
Claim 3. Claim 3 reads
3. The temperature monitoring circuit of claim 1, wherein the
temperature sensor comprises a plurality of temperature sensors
that are distributed substantially uniformly across the monolithic
chip.
Appeal Br. 11.
In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner found that temperature sensors 105
and 110 shown in Boerstler' s Figure l are substantially uniformly disposed
on a monolithic chip. Answer 7. Appellants argue that this finding is
erroneous. Appeal Br. 7. In response to this argument, the Examiner states
that "[Appellants'] argument is not persuasive because Rosen teaches this
limitation (see Fig. 1): the blocks are substantially uniformly placed on the
chip, each block includes a temperature sensor, (disclosure)." Answer 23.
9
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief. Thus, we do not have the
benefit of their response to the Examiner's argument in the Answer. 14
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4. Claim 4 reads
4. The temperature monitoring circuit of claim 1, wherein the
temperature sensor comprises a plurality of temperature sensors
that are designed concurrently with and incorporated into
functional blocks of the integrated circuit, and the placement of
the temperature sensors on the monolithic chip is wholly
dependent upon the placement of the functional blocks.
Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants argue that this rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner's reasoning set forth in the Final Action "reads into Rosen a great
deal more than what Rosen actually describes. Thus, claim 4 is separately
patentable over the cited combinations of references." Appeal Br. 7.
We do not find this argument persuasive. As explained by the
Examiner, Rosen's sensors are part of the circuit blocks, suggesting that the
sensors were built into the blocks as part of the manufacturing process.
Answer 24. Because Appellants do not explain what more must be added to
the Examiner's findings, we affirm the rejection of claim 4.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11 as unpatentable
over the combination of Zimlich and J ahagirdar. Answer 9-11. Appellants
argue for reversal of this rejection with respect to both claims on the basis of
their combined argument for reversal of the rejections of claim 1. Appeal
14 We note that that the Examiner did not designate the Answer as containing
a New Ground of Rejection. Appellants, however, did not petition to have
the Answer so designated. Thus, Appellants have given the Examiner the
last word regarding the subject matter of this appeal.
10
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Br. 7. As discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we affirm this
rejection.
Rejections 4 and 11. The Examiner rejected claim 6 as unpatentable
over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Ku. Answer 11. The
Examiner also rejected claim 6 as unpatentable over the combination of
Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Ku. Id. at 17.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of these rejections is that Ku
does not cure the alleged deficiencies in the combination of references relied
upon to reject claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-8. As discussed above, Appellants
have not persuaded us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim
1. Thus, we affirm these rejections.
Rejections 5 and 12. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 12 as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Zvonar. Answer
12. The Examiner also rejected claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Zvonar. Id. at 17.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of these rejections is that
Zvonar "does not remedy the deficiencies of the four base references."
Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we affirm these
rejections.
Rejections 6 and 13. The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Kunst. Answer
12-13. The Examiner also rejected claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over
the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Kunst. Id. at 18.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of these rejections is that
"Kunst does not remedy the deficiencies of the four base references."
11
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we affirm this
rejection.
Rejections 7 and 14. The Examiner rejected claims 13-16 as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Girling. Answer
13-14. The Examiner also rejected claims 13-16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Girling. Id. at 19.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of these rejections is that
"Girling does not remedy the deficiencies of the four base references."
Appeal Br. 10. As discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us that
the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we affirm these
rejections.
Rejections 8 and 15. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 as
unpatentable over the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Tanaka. Answer
14. The Examiner also rejected claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Tanaka. Answer 19.
Appellants argue that claims 8 and 9 are patentable based upon their
dependency from claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above, Appellants
have not convinced us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants also present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 8
and 9 which are discussed below.
Claim 8. Claim 8 recites:
8. The temperature monitoring circuit of claim 1, wherein the
system monitor is formed of transistors having a relatively
thicker gate oxide in comparison to a relatively thinner gate oxide
that is used in transistors of the integrated circuit in which the
temperature is to be monitored.
Appeal Br. 12.
12
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Appellants argue
[C]laim 8 additionally recites that the system monitor is formed
of transistors having a relatively thicker gate oxide in comparison
to a relatively thinner gate oxide that is used in transistors of the
integrated circuit in which temperature is to be monitored. . ..
However, Tanaka does not describe a system monitor of claim 8
in the thicker region, or temperature sensors in the thinner region.
The examiner has merely cited a reference that describes thicker
and thinner gate oxide regions, but not that the specific elements
of claim 8 should be disposed in any specific one of those
regions. Thus, claim 8 is separately patentable over the cited
combinations of references.
Id. at 8.
In rejecting claim 8, the Examiner found that "Tanaka discloses a
device in the field of applicant's endeavor wherein a monitor device located
on the IC having a core portion 69 of the IC formed by MOS having thinner
gate oxide as compared to peripheral devices on the IC having thicker gate
oxide, Fig. 24." Final Act. 9; see also Tanaka i-f 146. Based upon this
finding, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device suggested by either the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Tanaka or the combination of
Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Tanaka to have a system monitor that is formed of
transistors having a relatively thicker gate oxide in comparison to the thinner
gate oxide used in the transistors of the circuit whose temperature is being
monitored. Final Act. 9, 14. The Examiner further concluded
Please note, thin gate low voltage and thick gate high voltage
MOS are very well known in the art. Having made the system
monitor of thick relatively high voltage transistors, absent any
criticality, is only considered to be the "preferred" or
"optimum" choice that a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made would have been able to
13
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
determine using routine experimentation based, among other
things, on the desired range of the temperature being measured.
Answer 24--25.
Because Appellants have failed to file a Reply Brief, they have not
provided any substantive response to the Examiner's reasoning as set forth
in the Examiner's Answer. In the absence of such a response, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8. Thus, we
affirm the rejection.
Claim 9. Appellants argue:
[C]laim 9 additionally recites that the system monitor is
formed of transistors that operate at a relatively higher voltage
in comparison to a relatively lower voltage that is used in
transistors of the integrated circuit in which the temperature is
to be monitored. The examiner does not address this at all in
her rejections. Nor does Tanaka describe a system monitor that
operate at a relatively higher voltage in comparison to the rest
of the integrated circuit. Thus, claim 9 is separately patentable
over the cited combinations of references.
Appeal Br. 8.
In relevant part, the Final Action states that "Tanaka discloses a
device in the field of applicant's endeavor wherein a monitor device located
on the IC having a core portion 69 of the IC is formed by MOS having
thinner gate oxide as compared to peripheral devices on the IC having
thicker gate oxide, Fig. 24." Final Act. 9. The corresponding portion of the
Answer, however, states that
Tanaka discloses a device in the field of applicant's endeavor
wherein a monitor device located on the IC having a core
portion 69 of the IC is formed by MOS having thinner gate
oxide (low voltage) as compared to peripheral devices on the IC
having thicker gate oxide (high voltage), Fig. 24.
Answer 20 (emphasis added).
14
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
Appellants, therefore, are correct in stating that the Final Action did
not address claim 9's limitations. The Examiner's Answer, however, does
contain findings that address claim 9' s limitations. Because Appellants did
not file a Reply Brief, we do not have any substantive argument
demonstrating that the Examiner erred by finding that Tanaka describes or
suggests the additional limitations recited in claim 9. 15 We, therefore, affirm
the rejection of claim 9.
Rejection 9. The Examiner rejected claim 21 as unpatentable over
the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Appellants' admissions in the Pre-
Appeal Brief Request for Review filed January 30, 2012. Answer 14--15.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of this rejection is that Appellants'
admissions in their Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review "does not remedy
the deficiencies of the four base references. . . . Thus, claim 21 inherits
patentability through dependence upon claim 1." Appeal Br. 10. As
discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we affirm this rejection.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 21 pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 1 as not enabled.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 as unpatentable over
the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Zimlich.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 11 as unpatentable over the
combination of Zimlich and Jahagirdar.
15 See note 14, supra.
15
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Ku.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable over
the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Zvonar.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over
the combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Kunst.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 13-16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Girling.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Tanaka.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over the
combination of Rosen, Boerstler, and Appellants' admissions in the Pre-
Appeal Brief Request for Review filed January 30, 2012.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 21 as unpatentable
over the combination of Jahagirdar and Boerstler.
We AFFIRivI the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Ku.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable over
the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Zvonar.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over
the combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Kunst.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 13-16 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Girling.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over the
combination of Jahagirdar, Boerstler, and Tanaka.
16
Appeal2013-006620
Application 12/122,682
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
17