10869529 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2009)

Ex Parte Curtis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 21, 2009

10869529 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SUSAN A. CURTIS and CHRISTOPHER M. COOPER ____________ Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: September 21, 2009 ____________ Before JOHN C. MARTIN, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. See App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants invented a device and method for forming an integrated circuit wherein the dynamic logic threshold is based upon the lower of two power supplies.2 Claims 1 and 8, which further illustrate the invention, follow: 1. A power supply selection control circuit comprising: a first comparator; a second comparator; a first reference generator coupled to a first power supply node, and having a first reference output node directly connected to a first input of the first comparator and to a first input of the second comparator; and a second reference generator coupled to a second power supply node, and having a second reference output node directly connected to a second input of the first comparator and to a second input of the second comparator. 8. A power supply selection circuit comprising: 1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on February 15, 2007. A “Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief” was mailed August 28, 2007. Appellants filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on October 8, 2007. Another “Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief” was mailed November 21, 2007. Appellants filed another Supplemental Appeal Brief on December 5, 2007. We will refer to the Appeal Brief filed on February 15, 2007 and the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on December 5, 2007. 2 See generally Spec. 4-6. Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 3 a first comparator; a second comparator; a first reference generator coupled to a first power supply node, and having a first reference output node directly connected to a first input of the first comparator and to a first input of the second comparator; a second reference generator coupled to a second power supply node, and having a second reference output node directly connected to a second input of the first comparator and to a second input of the second comparator; a first power supply selection branch coupled between the first power supply node and an internal supply node, and having a control node coupled to an output of the first comparator; and a second power supply selection branch coupled between the second power supply node and the internal supply node, and having a control node coupled to an output of the second comparator. The Rejections The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Cowan US 4,812,672 Mar. 14, 1989 Kiryu US 4,833,342 May 23, 1989 Horiguchi US 5,402,375 Mar. 28, 1995 Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as being unpatentable over Cowan (Ans. 3-8). Claims 4-7 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan and Kiryu (Ans. 8-10). Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 4 Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan and Horiguchi (Ans. 10-11). Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cowan and Appellants’ Prior Art Figure 1 (Ans. 11-12). Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). Anticipation Rejection It is Appellants’ position that Cowan does not disclose direct connections to the comparators 300 and 400 respectively as required in claims 1 and 8 (App. Br. 6). It is the Examiner’s position that it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider Cowan’s resistors 330, 340, 430 and 440 as inputs to the comparators 300 and 400 respectively (Ans. 14). ISSUE Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Cowan discloses a power supply selection circuit wherein first and second reference output nodes are directly connected to first and second comparators? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Figure 3 of Cowan is reproduced below: Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 5 Figure 3 discloses a schematic of a circuit having multiple comparators 300 and 400 for selectively disconnecting a faulty power supply from an electrical load. 2. Cowan discloses resistor/capacitor pairs that are relied upon to reduce noise immunity 330/320, 340/360, 430/420 and 440/460 (col. 3, ll. 20-23 and 52-56). 3. Cowan discloses resistor pairs 340/350 and 440/450 that create a threshold voltage which is slightly less than the voltage level of the power supplies 600 and 500 respectively (col. 3, ll. 20-23 and 56-59). When the voltage of the power supplies 500 and 600 is above or below the threshold voltage established by the resistors, the MOSFETS 100 and 200 are switched either off or on accordingly (col. 3, ll. 20-23 and 59-68). Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 6 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “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. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). ANALYSIS Cowan provides resistors in combination with capacitors to insure the integrity of the input signals to the comparators by reducing noise (FF 1-2). Cowan also uses resistor pairs 340/350 and 440/450 to set up a threshold voltage in order to manipulate the MOSFETS 100 and 200 (FF 3). The Appellants state that resistors 340, 350, 440 and 450 form external resistor dividers to the negative inputs of the comparators 300 and 400 respectively (App. Br. 6). It is the Appellants’ position that the resistors are not part of the comparators because if they were, the configuration would create comparators with unbalanced inputs. Id. The Appellants rely upon this logic to conclude that Cowan does not anticipate claims 1 and 8 in regard to the limitations “a first reference output node directly connected to a first input of the first comparator and to a first input of the second comparator; a second reference generator coupled to a second power Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 7 supply node, and having a second reference output node directly connected to a second input of the first comparator and to a second input of the second comparator” Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner concluded that the input terminology employed in claims 1 and 8 is broad and fails to distinguish the claims over Cowan (Ans. 14). It is the Examiner’s position that resistors 330, 340, 430 and 440 are connected to the input terminals of the comparators and therefore the signal inputted to the resistors will be inputted to the comparators (Ans. 14, see also FF 1-2). We agree with the Examiner that the input terminology used in the claims is broad; however upon reviewing claims 1 and 8, we conclude that the claims’ language does not preclude Cowan’s resistors from being considered as being part of the claimed comparators. The Appellants fail to set forth with any specificity a rationale that supports their conclusion that claims 1 and 8 are distinguished over the Cowan reference. Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition of the term “comparator” and Appellants have not explained why the claim language, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, precludes Cowan’s resistors from being considered to be part of the claimed comparators. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. Therefore we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8 and claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 15 and 16, which fall with claims 1 and 8. Obviousness Rejections Likewise we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (1) Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 8 claims 4-7 and 17-20 over Cowan and Kiryu (Ans. 8-10); (2) claims 9 and 10 over Cowan and Horiguchi (Ans. 10-11); and claims 12 and 14 over Cowan and Appellants’ Prior Art Figure 1 (Ans. 11-12). Appellants state, “Claims 1-20 are the subject of this appeal.” (App. Br. 2), but fail to argue the merits of the rejection of claims 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17-20. Since the Appellants have not presented arguments rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for these claims, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17-20. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). CONCLUSIONS Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Cowan discloses a power supply selection circuit wherein first and second reference output nodes are directly connected to first and second comparators. ORDER We will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-004283 Application 10/869,529 9 tkl TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265