Ex Parte Golioto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2013

11234900 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IGOR GOLIOTO
____________

Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-18. Claim 7 has been objected to as containing
allowable subject matter, but allowable if amended to include all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A first embodiment of Appellant’s invention is a wireless
communication base station having a power supply, operative component
powered by the power supply, capacitive stability device in parallel with the
operative component, and current limiting device both in parallel with the
operative component and in series with the capacitive stability device
between the power supply and the capacitive stability device. Spec. 2,
¶ [0006]. According to Appellant’s summary of the invention, this
arrangement “provides current limiting capabilities without requiring the
current for powering the . . . operative component during normal operation
to flow through the current limiting device.” Id. at ¶ [0007].
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with a key disputed limitation
emphasized.
1. A base station for use in a wireless communication
system, comprising:
a power supply;
at least one operative component useful for facilitating
wireless communications, the at least one operative component
is powered by the power supply;
a capacitive stability device in parallel with the at least
one operative component; and
a current limiting device in series with the capacitive
stability device between the power supply and the capacitive
stability device, the current limiting device in parallel with the
at least one operative component.
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

3
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Gitsevich
Van Wonterghem
U.S. 6, 225,756 B1
U.S. 2002/0126829 A1
May 1, 2001
Sep. 12, 2002
Schaible U.S. 6,980,447 B1 Dec. 27, 2005
Reed U.S. 2006/0025104 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Reed and Van Wonterghem. Ans., p. 3-5.1
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Reed, Van Wonterghem, and Schaible. Id. at p. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Reed, Van Wonterghem, and Gitsevich. Id. at p.
6-7.
ANALYSIS
As to illustrative claim 1, the Examiner reads all of the claimed
components – power supply, operative component, capacitive stability
device, and current limiting device – on Reed’s Figure 3 embodiment. Ans.,
p. 3-4. Reed’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 9, 2010
(“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed January 31, 2011 (“Ans.”), and
Reply Brief filed March 30, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

4

Reed’s Figure 3 depicts a power supply system cited by the
Examiner.
With respect to Reed’s Figure 3, the Examiner particularly finds that
the claimed power supply reads on the power source Vin, the claimed
operative component reads on the load 104, the claimed capacitive stability
device reads on the capacitor 116, and the claimed current limiting device
reads on the switch 110. Ans., p. 3-4. The Examiner presents this
application of Reed in support of all rejections. Id. at p. 4-7.
Appellant argues that the switch 110 (claimed current limiting device)
is not in parallel – but rather in series – with the load 104 (claimed operative
component), such that the Examiner’s application of Reed fails to account
for the emphasized limitation of reproduced claim 1 (supra, p. 2); that is,
fails to teach “the current limiting device in parallel with the . . . operative
component” (claim 1). App. Br., p. 4-6. In support, Appellant further
argues that Reed’s switch 110 must be considered in series with Reed’s load
104 because: “No current from the power source Vin can reach the load
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

5
without first going through the switch 110. By definition, therefore, the
switch 110 is in series with the load 104.” Reply Br., p. 1; see also App. Br.,
p. 4. Appellant’s definition of “in series” is not disputed by the Examiner.
And, Appellant’s definition of “in series” is reasonable. Cf., What are
“series” and “parallel” circuits? Vishay In Stock @ Mouser, All About
Circuits; Volume I – DC; Series And Parallel Circuits,
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/1.html (last visited Oct. 30,
2013).
In response to Appellant’s above “in series” definition and argument,
the Examiner states: “As similarly recited in ‘response to arguments’ in
final rejection filed on 3/4/2010, Van Wonterghem teaches a limiting device
3 (Fig. 1) in parallel with the at least one operative component 2 (Fig. 1).”
Ans., p. 7. The Examiner provides no meaningful explanation of why Van
Wonterghem’s cited comparator 3 and equipment 2, or the combination of
Van Wonterghem and Reed, teaches or suggests Reed’s switch 110 and load
104 are in parallel with one another. Id. The Examiner merely states: “It is
simple substitution to include Van Wonterghem’s current limiting base
station and a limiting device in parallel with a component design into Reed’s
current limiting apparatus to achieve the predictable result of limiting
current in an apparatus.” Id. at p. 8.
We find Appellant’s above “in series” definition and argument to be
reasonable, whereas the Examiner’s determinations and findings are
confusing and not meaningfully explained. On one hand, the Examiner
seems to find that all features of the claimed components are taught by
Reed’s cited components, such that the switch 110 (claimed current limiting
device) and load 104 (claimed operative component) are found to be in
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

6
parallel with one another. Ans., p. 3-4. On the other hand, the Examiner
seems to find that the “in parallel” claim feature at issue is met by
substituting (or perhaps inserting) “Van Wonterghem’s current limiting base
station and a limiting device in parallel with a component design into Reed’s
current limiting apparatus.” Id. at p. 8. Because Reed’s switch 110 and load
104 are not in parallel with one another, and because the Examiner has not
reasonably articulated how the “in parallel” claim feature at issue is
suggested by a combination of Van Wonterghem’s and Reed’s teachings, the
Examiner fails to establish a teaching or suggestion of the claimed “current
limiting device in parallel with [an] operative component.”
Before concluding, we note the Examiner’s further response that:
[I]t is unclear whether the current limiting device is in parallel
with the operative component or the capacitive stability device
is in parallel with the operative component by the language “a
current limiting device in series with the capacitive stability
device and in parallel with the at least one operative
component”. It is unclear by the language exactly which
component (or both) is parallel with the operative component
and examiner read it as the capacitive stability device being in
parallel which was recited earlier in the claim.
Ans., p. 7-8. Contrary to the Examiner’s further response, claim 1 recites
clear “in series” and “in parallel” relationships of the power supply,
operative component, capacitive stability device, and current limiting device.
According to claim 1, “the . . . operative component is powered by the
power supply,” the “capacitive stability device [is] in parallel with the . . .
operative component,” and the current limiting device is (i) “in series with
the capacitive stability device between the power supply and the capacitive
stability device” and (ii) “in parallel with the . . . operative component.”
Appeal 2011-007761
Application 11/234,900

7
In light of the foregoing, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections
of: claims 1-5 and 11-15 over Reed and Van Wonterghem; claims 6, 10, and
16 over Reed, Van Wonterghem, and Schaible; and claims 8, 9, 17, and 18
over Reed, Van Wonterghem, and Gitsevich.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 8-18 is reversed.
REVERSED

llw