Ex Parte Chi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 201612748345 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121748,345 03/26/2010 77215 7590 05/25/2016 MPG, LLP AND SANDISK 710 LAKEWAY DRIVE SUITE 200 SUNNYVALE, CA 94085 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steve Chi 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. SANDP065/SDA-1522-US 5031 EXAMINER PUENTES, DANIEL CALRISSIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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) lJNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADE1\1ARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVE CHI and EKRAM BHUIY AN Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/7 48,345 Technology Center 2800 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 20-24, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We have jurisdiction over the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 In this Decision, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed March 26, 2010); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 19, 2013); Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed August 26, 2013); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 9, 2013); and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 9, 2013). Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is generally directed to host power-on reset control. See Spec. Title. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A host power-on reset control circuit, comprising: a comparator electrically connected to receive a divided version of a supply voltage at a first input and a reference voltage at a second input, the comparator defined to generate a high digital state signal at a comparator output when the divided version of the supply voltage at the first input is at least as large as the reference voltage at the second input; an output node electrically connected to transmit a power-on reset control signal; pulldown circuitry electrically connected between the comparator output and the output node, the pulldown circuitry defined to maintain the output node at a reset voltage level as the supply voltage rises to a host operational level based on a digital state signal present at the comparator output; and pullup circuitry electrically connected between the supply voltage and the output node, the pullup circuitry defined to maintain the output node at a non-reset voltage level after the supply voltage has risen to the host operational level, wherein a low digital state signal at the comparator output causes the pulldown circuitry to electrically connect the output node to a ground reference potential, and wherein the high digital state signal at the comparator output causes the output node to be electrically isolated from the ground reference potential. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Migliavacca (US 5,920,182; July 6, 1999). Final Act. 4--7. 2 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Migliavacca and Madurawe (US 6,849,958 B2; Feb. 1, 2005). Final Act. 7- 8. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Migliavacca, Madurawe, and Aoyama (US 6,507,229 Bl; Jan. 14, 2003). Final Act. 8-9. Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Migliavacca, Madurawe, Aoyama, and Carper (US 7,863,884 Bl; filed Jan. 8, 2009). Final Act. 9-11. Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Migliavacca and Carper. Final Act. 11-13. ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this Opinion. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 2-5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4--13) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 12-15). We highlight specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 3 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 AlVTICIP AT!Ol'f 1?EJECTI01V In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner reads the recited "comparator" on the combination of comparator 110 and inverter 152 in Migliavacca' s Figure 8. Appellants argue "this assertion by the examiner is not consistent with the disclosure of Migliavacca." App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants contend "Migliavacca discloses in a clear manner that the comparator 110 and the inverting switch 152 are separate electrical elements in the voltage monitoring device of Figure 8." Id. at 7. Thus, Appellants argue the Examiner has impermissibly redefined the clear disclosure of Migliavacca's comparator to meet the recitations of claim 1. Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Examiner is not required to use the same terminology as the cited reference. The addition of an inverter to the output of a conventional comparator such as 110 merely serves as an interface for implementations which require a low output state when the voltage at the non-inverting input is greater than that of the inverting input. Furthermore, the combination of 110 and 152 as the claimed comparator still meets all the requirements of a comparator since the output is solely dependent upon the comparison of two input signals (118, 120). Ans. 13. The addition of inverter 152 at the output ofMigliavacca's comparator 110 merely represents a design choice based on the particular coupling of two inputs to the comparator. Reversing the coupling of voltages to inputs 118 and 120 of comparator 110 in Migliavacca obviates the need for inverter 152. Claim I merely requires that the recited "comparator [is] defined to generate a high digital state signal at a comparator output when the divided version of the supply voltage at the first input is at least as large as the reference voltage at the second input." 4 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 l\1igliavacca's comparator 110 combined with inverter 152 meets the requirements of the recited comparator of claim 1. Appellants further argue "such 're-definition' of the prior art is impermissible, especially in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102." Reply Br. 2. Appellants contend the Examiner is relying on hindsight based on Appellants' disclosure to re-define the disclosure of Migliavacca. Id. We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Appellants' Specification states (consistent with claim 1 ), "[ t ]he comparator is defined to generate a high digital state signal at a comparator output when the divided version of the supply voltage at the first input is at least as large as the reference voltage at the second input." Spec. i-f 2. The Examiner's interpretation of such a comparator as reading on the combination of comparator 110 and inverter 152 in Migliavacca is, therefore, a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed "comparator" and is consistent with Appellants' Specification. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1. Independent claim 20 is rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 1 and Appellants present essentially the same arguments. App. Br. 8-9. Dependent claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and are not argued separately with particularity. App. Br. 9. Thus, 5 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 as anticipated by Migliavacca. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claim 5 depends from claim 4 (which depends from claim 1) and defines a particular structure for the pulldown circuitry recited in claim 1. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner maps the recited pulldown circuitry to inverter 154 and transistor 126 of Migliavacca's Figure 8. Final Act. 5. In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds Madurawe, in combination with Migliavacca, teaches a particular inverter structure as comprising transistor 306 and resistor 305 as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner finds that Migliavacca is silent as to the specific structure of inverter 154 in Figure 8 and, thus, the motivation for combining Madura we' s inverter into Migliavacca circuit is that "any person having ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the generic symbol for an inverter in instant Fig. 8 suggests that any well-known inverter circuitry can/should be used to implement this generic box." Final Act. 8. Appellants argue Madurawe's resistor 305 and transistor 306 are not an inverter. App. Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds Madura we discloses the structure of Figure 3A is a "resistor-load latch ... formed by two cross-coupled inverters." Ans. 14. Appellants further contend the Examiner errs in referring to Madurawe's resistor-load latch as "cross-coupled inverters." Reply Br. 4. We agree with the Examiner. Madura we specifically refers to these structures as inverters (see, e.g., Madura we 3: 1-23) and further refers to the "cross coupling of back to back inverters" (id. at 26:66). Thus, we agree 6 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 with the Examiner that l\1igliavacca's inverter 154 (read as the recited pulldown circuitry) may be implemented as one of Madurawe's inverters, e.g., comprising resistor 305 and transistor 306. Appellants further contend even assuming Madurawe discloses an inverter such as inverter 154 of Migliavacca, the combination still fails to disclose the features of claim 5 because it is not "connected to the comparator output 124 of Migliavacca because the inverter 154 is not connected to the comparator output 124 in the first place." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4. We remain unpersuaded because, as discussed supra, the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of the recited comparator includes Migliavacca's comparator 110 and inverter 152, which is coupled to the input of inverter 154 in Figure 8. Furthermore, bodily integration of the structures of the references is not the test of obviousness. 2 The Examiner has provided a detailed description of exemplary coupling and functioning of one of Madurawe's inverters in place ofMigliavacca's inverter 154. Ans. 14--15. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5. Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of claims 6-11 and 21-24. Thus, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 5-11 and 21-24 for the same reasons as their respective base claims. Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 5-11 and 21-24. 2 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). 7 Appeal2014-002732 Application 12/748,345 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3- 11, and 21-24 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation