Ex Parte Diewald et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14020157 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/020,157 09/06/2013
23494 7590 12/25/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Horst Diewald
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.
TI-73473 6121
EXAMINER
MCDONNOUGH, COURTNEY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST DIEW ALD, JOHANN ZIPPERER,
PETER WEBER, and ANTON BRAUCHLE
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Sept. 6, 2013 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action dated Aug. 26, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Jan. 30, 2017 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer dated Aug. 14, 2017
("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Texas Instruments Deutschland GMBH. Texas
Instruments Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
The subject matter on appeal relates to tracking and controlling energy
consumption in electronic systems. Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1 and 16 are
illustrative ( disputed matter italicized):
1. A system, comprising:
a DC-DC converter configured to maintain a desired output
voltage by switching energy to a storage device based on
the actual output voltage of the DC-DC converter;
an energy tracking system coupled to the DC-DC converter, and
comprising:
pulse timing logic configured to measure parameters of a
signal that controls the switching of energy to the
storage device in the DC-DC converter;
voltage measurement circuitry configured to measure an
input voltage provided to the DC-DC converter
and an output voltage provided by the DC-DC
converter;
error detection logic configured to identify an error
condition occurring affecting the DC-DC
converter; and
reporting logic configured to report the measured
parameters of the signal to an energy monitoring
system.
16. An energy tracking system, comprising:
pulse timing logic configured to:
receive a pulse signal from a DC-DC converter, wherein
the pulse signal controls the switching of energy to
a storage device in the DC-DC converter; and
measure a duration of a pulse of the pulse signal; and
reporting logic configured to report the measured duration of
the pulse to an energy monitoring system.
Br. 11, 14--15 ( Claims Appendix). Independent claim 21 is similar to claim
16, but additionally recites "error detection logic configured to identify an
2
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
overcurrent condition" and "calibration circuitry configured to selectably
apply a known calibration load to an output of the DC-DC converter." Id. at
16.
The Examiner maintains and Appellant appeals the following
rejections:
1. Claims 1-8, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Aldous3 in
view ofBabb4 and Hasegawa; 5
2. Claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aldous
and Babb in view of Hasegawa, and Shimamori; 6
3. Claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Aldous and Babb in view of Hasegawa, and Tang; 7
4. Claims 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Aldous in view of Babb;
5. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aldous and
Babb in view of Shimamori; and
6. Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aldous and
Babb in view of Tang; and
7. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Aldous and
Babb in view of Shimamori and Tang.
Ans. 2; Br. 5-10.
We address below each claim separately argued by Appellant.
3 US 5,638,540, issued June 10, 1997.
4 US 2008/0265869 Al, published Oct. 30, 2008.
5 US 2010/0273072 Al, published Oct. 28, 2010.
6 US 6,163,143, issued Dec. 19, 2000.
7 US 2011/0221405 Al, published Sept. 15, 2001.
3
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 1---8, 12, and 15
The Examiner concludes that claims 1-8, 12, and 15 are unpatentable
over Aldous in view of Babb and Hasegawa for the reasons stated on pages
2-10 of the Final Action.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 2-8, 12, and 15, but relies upon their dependency from claim 1.
Br. 7. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 2-8, 12, and
15 will stand or fall together with independent claim 1 from which they
depend.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
none of the cited references permits precise measurement of switching times
of the DC-DC converter as required by the claim. Br. 6-7. Appellant
contends that: (1) Aldous can only measure voltage drop, (2) Babb
measures rise and fall times but cannot determine accurate switching times,
and (3) Hasegawa only measures voltage without regard to switching times.
Id. at 7.
The Examiner responds that Aldous discloses that module 20
monitors the stored energy level or charge of battery 28 and that under
control of microprocessor 22, in combination with stored energy sensing
means 30, the electrical energy stored in battery 28 is measured whenever
the radio is turned on. Ans. 3.
The Examiner further responds that Babb teaches pulse timing logic,
which is configured to measure parameters of a signal that controls the
switching of energy to the storage device in the DC-DC converter. Id. at 4
(citing Babb ,r,r 4, 10, 14, Fig. 1 (items 16, 18, 20)). The Examiner finds that
4
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
Babb's controller 14 controls the switching of the energy to power supply 18
and that test device 20 monitors or measures the signals from output stage 16
before they are outputted to power supply 18. Id. at 5. The Examiner quotes
from Babb paragraph 14 that test device 20 is configured to calculate test
data associated with switching power supply 12 based on operation data
acquired from tire test node 24. Id. The Examiner finds that "test device 20
has ... some sort of logic device in order to [be] able to calculate test data
associated with the switching power supply 12 based on the operational data
acquired." Id. The Examiner also finds that the abundance of information
enables diagnosis of defects resulting in a more robust and precise switching
power supply system. Id. at 6.
Regarding Hasegawa, the Examiner finds the reference measures the
input voltage as required by claim 1. Ans. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1.
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's findings
that (1) Aldous measures the electrical energy stored in battery 28 is
measured whenever the radio is turned on (Ans. 3; Aldous 8: 19--29);
(2) Babb's controller 14 controls switching of the energy to power supply 18
and that Babb's test device 20 calculates test data associated with switching
power supply 12, with the abundance of information enabling a more robust
and precise switching power supply system (Ans. 5---6; Babb ,r 14); and
(3) Hasegawa measures input voltage (Ans. 8; Final Act. 4; Hasegawa ,r 46).
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding (Ans. 6) that Babb's
calculated data enable a diagnosis of defects that results in a more precise
switching power supply system. Appellant also does not dispute the
5
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
Examiner's finding that Hasegawa discloses a correction unit that corrects
control parameters of a voltage converter when abnormality in the state of
the electric power detector is determined (Final Act. 5). Therefore, we find
no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
In sum, for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer,
we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 12, and 15 over the cited
prior art.
Rejection 4: Claims 16, 17, and 20
The Examiner finds that claims 16, 17, and 20 would have been
obvious over the combination of Aldous and Babb for the reasons stated on
pages 16-18 of the Final Action and 8-10 of the Answer.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 17 and 20, but relies upon their dependency from claim 16. Br. 8. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 17 and 20 will stand or
fall together with independent claim 16 from which they depend.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16
because Babb does not disclose circuitry to "'measure a duration of a pulse
of the pulse signal"' and does not measure duration of anything. Br. 8.
Instead, Appellant contends that Babb discloses calculating switching
parameter waveforms in the presence of 'jitter" at the output, which is
different from the invention, which measures the pulse signal that controls
the switching energy to the storage device, thus avoiding distortion due to
"jitter." Id. Appellant asserts that Babb does not disclose or suggest "pulse
timing logic" as required by claim 16. Id.
6
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
The Examiner responds that because Babb calculates the period of the
total switching waveform and/or a pulse width of the high-side switch "on"
times, it necessarily requires also the pulse rise-time and/or a pulse fall-time
associated with the switching of the switching phases of the measurements
or the voltage and/or current along with the time. Ans. 9. The Examiner
also finds that the operational data associated with the switching phases over
a predetermined periodic of time, such as during typical operation of the
switching power supply, is obtained by Babb's performance monitor 68. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting claim 16 because the Examiner identifies
Babb's performance monitor 68 as being configured for obtaining
operational data during operation of the switching power supply with the
operation including pulse rise-time and pulse fall-time associated with
switching. Ans. 9. Based on the cited record, the preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Babb's system measures a
duration of a pulse of the pulse signal as required by claim 16. Therefore,
for the reasons stated above and in the Examiner's Answer, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 17, and 20 as unpatentable over Aldous
and Babb.
Rejection 7: Claim 21
The Examiner finds that claim 21 would have been obvious over the
combination of Aldous, Babb, Shimamori, and Tang for the reasons stated
on pages 21-23 of the Final Action.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
because the combination of art does not disclose the limitations emphasized
7
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
in connection with claim 1 discussed above. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that Aldous does not disclose elements 20 or 30 receive a pulse signal
from a DC-DC converter "'wherein the pulse signal controls the switching
of energy to a storage device in the DC-DC converter"' as required by the
claim. Id. Appellant contends that what the Examiner identifies as element
16 in Babb has an output shown in Figure 2 as lead 62 and, although the
signal at node 62 is controlled, Babb does not control "the switching of
energy to a storage device" recited in claim 21. Id.
The Examiner responds that the stored energy sensing means 30
shown in Aldous's Figures 2 and 3 does receive signals from converter
means 24. Ans. 11. Regarding Babb, the Examiner responds that the fact
node 62 is in front of the energy to storage device L 1 implies that whatever
happens at this node 62 affects energy to storage device L1. Id. at 12 (citing
Babb, Fig. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because the
Examiner's finding that Aldous discloses a pulse signal from DC-DC
converter 24 is received by stored energy sensing means 30 is supported by
the record. Final Act. 21-22 (citing Aldous 6:33, 8:19-25). In addition,
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that controlling the signal
at node 62 necessarily affects the energy to storage device L 1. Thus, the
preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal record supports the
Examiner's rejection of claim 21. Accordingly, for the above reasons and
those stated in the Examiner's Answer, we affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claim 21 as unpatentable over the combination of Aldous, Babb,
Shimamori, and Tang.
8
Appeal 2018-001163
Application 14/020, 157
Rejections 2, 3, 5, and 6: Claims 9-11, 13, 14, 18, and 19
Appellant relies upon the dependency of claims 9-11, 13, and 14 on
independent claim 1 and the dependency of claims 18 and 19 on independent
claim 16 in asserting that the subsidiary references do not cure the
deficiencies of Aldous identified in connection with claims 1 and 16. Br. 7-
8. Because we do find Appellant's arguments over claims 1 and 16
persuasive of reversible error by the Examiner, we affirm the rejections of
claims 9-11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with independent claims 1 and 16.
CONCLUSION
We affirm all of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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 ).
AFFIRMED
9