Ex Parte Ginggen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2015

12313445 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/313,445 11/19/2008 Alec Ginggen COD5076USCON1 2854
33766 7590 06/19/2015
COHEN & HILDEBRAND, PLLC
2409 CHURCH ROAD
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002
EXAMINER
MYERS, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2015 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)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEC GINGGEN and ROCCO CRIVELLI
___________

Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN A. EVANS and
WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–18 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “to power consumption optimization
circuitry for a system having multiple electronic components of which at
least one is always powered on and at least one is normally powered off until
otherwise powered on to perform a specific task or function.” Specification
¶ 2.

Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445

2

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. Circuitry for conserving power in a system having
multiple electronic components, comprising:
a power source;
a first electronic component operating at a first frequency
and continuously powered on by the power source; and
a second electronic component operating at a second
frequency different than that of the first frequency of the first
electric component, the second electronic component being
maintained in a powered off state in which no energy is
consumed by the second electronic component until energized
in response to a power enabling signal generated by the first
electronic component based on demand of the particular
function to be performed by the second electronic component.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–10 and 12–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Perry (US Patent Number 5,142,684; issued August
25, 1992) and Chauvel (US Patent Number 6,889,330 B2; issued May 3,
2005). Answer 5–7.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Perry, Chauvel and Fung (US Patent Number 5,396,635;
issued March 7, 1995). Answer 8.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 20, 2013) and the Answer (mailed
September 11, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief.
Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445

3

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants contend the claimed “no energy is consumed by the second
electronic component” limitation as recited in claim 1 is not disclosed by the
Perry/Chauvel combination. Appeal Brief 6. The Examiner does not rely on
Perry for teaching this limitation and Appellants argue Chauvel fails to
address this deficiency because:
[A]s clearly illustrated in the drawing [Figure 11] itself, an
electrical connection is nevertheless maintained at all times (as
depicted by the horizontal line) between MPU (12) and the
“coprocessor and peripheral” block (including coprocessor (16)
performing high speed mathematical computations) such that
some amount of power is always consumed by the coprocessor
and peripheral block (including coprocessor (16)), even when in
a disable state.

Appeal Brief 6–7.

We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Chauvel’s
Specification does not support Appellants’ position. An attorney’s
arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that,
regardless of Chauvel’s Figure 11 failure to disclose switching circuitry as
disclosed in the Specification, “Chauvel et al expressly states ‘Coprocessor
16 is shown as disabled (power off), along with peripheral A 100a while
Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445

4

peripheral B 100b is shown as enabled.’” Answer 9 (quoting Chauvel
column 8, lines 60–62).
Appellants further argue modifying Perry in accordance to Chauvel’s
teachings would “result in the power switching circuitry taught by Chauvel
et al. being disposed between processors (10, 20) of Perry et al., not between
battery (21) and adjustable switching regulator (19).” Appeal Brief 7. We
do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Chauvel’s
Specification does not support Appellants’ position. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Further, “[t]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as
well as, claims 5–8 not separately argued.
Appellants contend in regard to claim 9, “Modification of Perry et al.,
in accordance with the teachings of Chauvel et al., would result in the
‘power switching circuitry’ being disposed between the two processors (i.e.,
between low performance processor (10) and high performance processor
(20)).” Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds Chauvel “does not state the
power switching circuitry is between the two processors” and Chauvel only
shows the “power is Disabled to the components by associated power
switching circuitry.” Answer 9–10. We agree with the Examiner’s findings
because Chauvel column 8, lines 62–67, which Appellants cite to for
support, is silent in regard to the placement of the switching circuitry and
therefore does not provide support for Appellants’ argument. Appellants
Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445

5

argue dependent claims 2 and 3 are distinguishable over the cited art because
they both have limitations similar to claim 9. Appeal Brief 10. However,
we did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and thus we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Appellants further contend that claim 9 is distinguishable over the
prior art because claim 9 requires a voltage level translator and the
Examiner’s maintains that Perry teaches the use of translator when in reality
Perry only teaches the use of an adjustable switching regulator. Appeal
Brief 9–10. However, reviewing the Answer it is evident that the Examiner
did not address the voltage level translator at all. See Answer 7. Therefore,
we find Appellants’ argument persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, as well as, dependent claims
10–13. Further Appellants argue that both dependent claims 4, as well as,
independent claim 14 are distinguishable over the cited art because both
require a voltage level translator.1 Appeal Brief 10–11. We find
Appellants’ argument persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 4 and 14–18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–8
are affirmed.

1 Appellants refer to claim 14 as dependent however according to the record,
claim 14 is independent. Appeal Brief 15. We consider this harmless error.
Appeal 2013-002778
Application 12/313,445

6

The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4 and 9–18
are reversed.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
kme