Ex Parte Clara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

12580588 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/580,588 10/16/2009
67998 7590 12/24/2015
SpryIP, LLC IFX
Tim R. Wyckoff
34007 SE Vaughan St.
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Clara
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.
IFXAG0184US 1696
EXAMINER
TRA, ANH QUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2015 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):
timw@spryip.com
info@spryip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN CLARA, DANIEL GRUBER, and
WOLFGANG KLATZER 1
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-26. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to threshold voltage
modification via a voltage generator connected to bulk nodes of transistors.
1 Appellants identify Infineon Technologies AG as the Real Party in Interest.
Br. 4.
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
Spec. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is directed to a device and independent
claim 16 to a method.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A device comprising:
multiple cells, each of which corresponds to a respective
bit of a digital input signal, and each of the multiple cells
including;
at least one current source connected to a supply voltage;
a voltage generator;
a first transistor connected to the at least one current
source, and a bulk region of the first transistor is connected to
the voltage generator; and
a second transistor connected to the at least one current
source and to the first transistor, and a bulk region of the second
transistor is connected to the voltage generator,
wherein a first transistor in a first cell of the multiple
cells is connected in parallel with a first transistor associated
with one or more of another cell of the multiple cells, and a sum
of output current of the first transistor corresponding to each of
the multiple cells produces an analog output voltage based on
the digital input signal.
Br. 14, Claims Appendix.
Appellants argue the patentability all claims on the basis of claim 1, or
rely on the arguments as to claim 1. Br. 7-13. Accordingly, we focus our
discussion on claim 1.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1-9, 11, 16, and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Cho et al. (US 2007/0290911 Al, published December 20,
2
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
2007) ("Cho") in view of Somnyanath et al. (US 6,218,892 Bl, issued April
17, 2001) ("Somnyanath").
Claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cho in
view of Soumyanath and Marr et al. (US 6,529,421 B 1, issued March 4,
2003) ("Marr").
Claims 1 and 16 over Zhang et al. (US 2005/0225465 Al, published
October 13, 2005) ("Zhang") in view of Soumyanath. 2
Claims 18-26 stand rejected over Zhang in view of Soumyanath and
Raghavan et al. (US 7 ,504,87 6 B 1, issued March 17, 2009) ("Raghavan").
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence and opposing contentions of
Appellants and the Examiner, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive that
the Examiner erred in finding a lack of written description, but unpersuasive
of reversible error in the Examiner's decision rejecting all claims as
unpatentable for obviousness. 3 We add the following.
Rejection under 35 USC§ 112,first paragraph
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph because we agree that Appellants
have shown how the Specification, particularly Figures 2 and 4, conveys
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, that Applicants were in possession of the invention as now claimed,
contrary to the Examiner's position there is no written description support
2 While Raghavan is included in the heading for the rejection, no discussion
is apparent relating to Raghavan in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 7-8.
3 We refer to the Final Office Action (mailed August 7, 2012), the Appeal
Brief (filed July 19, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 13,
2013).
3
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
for transistors of multiple cells being connected in parallel. See also Spec.
i-fi-134--36. In particular, having failed to direct us to a basis for any contrary
definition not including what is disclosed or to evidence that the structure
depicted in Figures 2 and 4 does not constitute written description of the
invention as claimed (see Final Act. 2; Ans. 4), the Examiner has provided
no basis that written description is lacking. See Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba
Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 866 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("It is also clear that 'drawings
alone may provide a 'written description' of an invention as required by
§ 112."') (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)).
Rejections under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Appellants have not presented specific arguments addressing each of
the rejected claims. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter on appeal and will limit our discussion thereto.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' arguments and evidence fail to identify a reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a
prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one
of 'reversible error."').
Regarding the rejections based on combinations of Cho with
additional references, Appellants argue that contrary to the Examiner's
position that Cho discloses a first transistor in a first cell connected in
parallel with a first transistor in a second cell, "that at least one transistor of
Cell I is not coupled to [sic] in parallel to at least one transistor of Cell 2."
4
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
Br. 11-12 (citing the coupling to sources ofMN14 and MN16 in Fig. 3 and
coupling disclosed in paragraph 68 of Cho).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, however, because the
arguments do not address the relied on combination of Cho and Soumyanath
(Final Act. 3) in which "transistors in cell 1 and cell 2 have common bulk
terminal[ s] [such that] ... transistor MN21 or MN22 in cell 1 is connected
in parallel to transistor MN23 or MN24 in cell 2" (Ans. 5-6). The
Examiner's determination in light of Appellants' definition of "connected in
parallel" stands uncontroverted on the record before us-there is no Reply
Brief. It is axiomatic that "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The relevant
inquiry is, instead, whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See id. at 425.
Further, in regard to Appellants' citation to paragraph 68 of Cho, we
find it unpersuasive where it describes elements other than those relied on by
the Examiner in reaching the rejection, namely, current dividers rather than
switch elements. (Cho i-fi-159, 67--68).
Regarding the rejections based on combinations of Zhang with
additional references, Appellants argue that nothing in Zhang suggests the
relied on transistors 110 and 114 (see Zhang Fig. 1) are connected in parallel
because while "transistors 110 and 114 have common connections to lout,
... transistors 110 and 114 do not otherwise share another common
connection." Br. 12.
5
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, however, because the
arguments do not address the Examiner's reasoning which relied upon the
combination of Zhang and Soumyanath (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6-8). As
modified, "the transistors in cell 1 and cell 2 have [a] common bulk terminal
... [ t ]hus, transistor 110 or 112 in cell 1 has common drain and bulk nodes
with transistor 114 or 116 in cell 2." Ans. 7. Further, the Examiner
determines "Zhang' s figure 1 shows that the current sources ( 106 and 108)
are connected to the supply voltage (at the sources of 106 and 108)." Id. at
8. On this record, therefore, Appellants have not identified error in the
Examiner's rejection grounded on the combination of Zhang and
Soumyanath. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d at 426.
For these reasons, therefore, we find Appellants' arguments are
unsupported by persuasive evidence that the Examiner's relied on
combinations do not provide a device meeting the limitations of claim 1 or
method of claim 16, or that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
articulated reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found the device and method obvious. Accordingly, it cannot be said that
Appellants have shown reversible error in the determination that one of
ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge of the cited prior art,
would have been led to the subject matter recited in the appealed claims.
See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is REVERSED.
6
Appeal2014-001061
Application 12/580,588
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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 ).
AFFIRMED
bar
7