Ex Parte Fung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2010

10792526 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK YING CHEUNG FUNG
____________

Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: January 28, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and KARL D.
EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 10-16, 18-20, and 23-25, which are all of the pending claims. Claims
1-9, 17, 21, and 22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

2
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (filed March 12, 2008), the Answer (dated
May 30, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed July 30, 2008) for the respective
details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a current control circuit that receives a
power supply voltage on a supply node and is coupled between the supply
node and a storage node which is coupled to an energy storage circuit. The
current control circuit operates in a charging mode to limit a current supplied
from the supply node to the storage node. The current control circuit further
operates in a discharging mode to instantaneously supply current to the
supply node from the storage node in response to a voltage on the supply
node being less than a threshold value. (See generally Spec. ¶ [007]).

Claim 10 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

10. A power control circuit, comprising:
a switching circuit adapted to receive first and second supply voltages
and to receive a control signal, the switching circuit operable to
provide a selected one of the first and second supply voltages to a
supply node and to isolate the other one of the supply voltages from
Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

3
the supply node, the selected one of the supply voltages being
determined responsive to the control signal;
an energy storage circuit having a storage node, the energy storage
circuit operable to store electrical energy from a current supplied to the
storage node;
a current limiting element coupled to the storage node and the supply
node, the current limiting element operable to limit a current supplied to the
storage node responsive to the selected one of the first and second supply
voltages applied on the supply node; and
a rectifying element having a first node coupled to the storage node
and a second node coupled to the supply node, the rectifying element
operable to supply current from the storage node to the supply node
responsive to the voltage on the supply node dropping below a threshold
value and to otherwise isolate the first node from the second node.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Martin US 5,111,058 May 5, 1992

Chu US 2004/0264398 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
(filed June 25, 2003)
Bowser US 2005/0097369 A1 May 5, 2005
(filed Oct. 23, 2003)
Vlutters US 2006/0209649 A1 Sep. 21, 2006
(filed Mar. 1, 2004)

Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

4
Claims 10-15 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin in view of Vlutters.1
Claims 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Martin in view of Vlutters and Chu.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Martin in view of Vlutters, Chu, and Bowser.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues before us are whether Appellant has demonstrated
that the Examiner erred in determining that Vlutters discloses:
a) a switching circuit which switches between two power supply
voltage sources in response to the receiving of a control signal, and
b) the isolation of the selected power supply from the non-selected
power supply relative to the power supply control circuit supply node.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following relevant findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Martin discloses (Fig. 1, col. 2, l. 61-col. 3, l. 1) a power control
circuit 100 including an energy storage circuit 110, 120 which stores
electrical energy from current supplied to a storage node.
2. Martin further discloses (col. 3, ll. 8-28) a current limiting circuit R1,
D1 which limits current supplied to the storage node, and a rectifying circuit

1 Although apparently overlooked by both Appellant and the Examiner,
dependent claims 24 and 25 are presently dependent on canceled claim 22.
Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

5
D2, B1 which supplies current from the storage node to a supply node when
voltage on the supply node drops below a threshold value.
3. Vlutters discloses (Fig. 1, ¶[0037], ll. 9-22) a switching circuit 9
which switches between an internal battery power source 8 and an external
power supply source 7.
4. The Figure 1 illustration in Vlutters depicts a bi-directional
connecting line between the power switch 9 and the control circuit 10.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness” . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

6
ANALYSIS
I. The rejection of claims 10-15 and 23-25 based on the
combination of Martin and Vlutters.

With respect to independent claims 10, 15, and 23, Appellant’s
arguments do not attack the Examiner’s basis for the proposed combination
of Martin and Vlutters but, rather, focus on the contention that, in contrast to
the claimed invention which requires a switching circuit that selects one of
at least two supply voltages in response to the receiving of a control signal,
Vlutters merely transmits a signal from the switching circuit 9 to the control
circuit 10. According to Appellant (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2), the signal
provided to the control circuit 10 from the switching circuit 9 in Vlutters is
indicative of the available power supply voltages, but there is no disclosure
of any supply voltage selection by the switching circuit 9 in response to a
receipt of a control signal from the control circuit 10.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive of any error in
the Examiner’s stated position. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4, 7, and
8) that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated
that, since the switching circuit 9 in Vlutters requires a control signal in
order to switch between the two power supplies 7 and 8, the existence of the
bi-directional connection line between the control circuit 10 and the
switching circuit 9 indicates that the switching circuit 9 is receiving a control
signal from control circuit 10. We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8),
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2) to the contrary
notwithstanding, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized
and appreciated that, since Vlutters discloses (¶ [0037], ll. 15-16) that
switching circuit 9 switches between two power sources indicating that only
Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

7
one power source is connected at a time, isolation would be provided
between the active and the non-used power sources.
For the above reasons, since Appellant has not demonstrated any error
in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness based on the teachings of
Martin and Vlutters, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 10, 15, and 23, as well as dependent claims 11-14, 24,
and 25 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.

II. The obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 18-20.

We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16
and 18-20 in which the Examiner has applied the Chu and Bowser
references in separate combinations with Martin and Vlutters to address the
computer network and Ethernet switch features of the rejected claims.
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 2) rely on those
previously made with respect to independent claims 10, 15, and 23, which
arguments we found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting appealed
claims 10-16, 18-20, and 23-25 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-16, 18-20, and
23-25, all of the appealed claims, is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-002519
Application 10/792,526

8
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

ke

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528