Ex Parte Gu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

12131982 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD GU
____________

Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 101-14, 21, and 22. Claims 2, 9, and 15-20 have
been cancelled, and claims 23 and 24 have been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Although claim 10 depends from cancelled claim 9, we presume that claim
10 depends from independent claim 8 in this opinion.
Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention generally relates to an apparatus for cancelling
supply noise including an input circuit operable to receive an input from a
charge pump and a drive circuit connected to an output of the input circuit.
The drive circuit is operable to provide an output matching the input to the
input circuit when a voltage source powering the input circuit and the drive
circuit is stable, and to introduce a contrary voltage change on the buffered
output when the voltage source is noisy, with the contrary voltage change
being contrary to a voltage change on the voltage source due to noise. See
generally Abstract; Figs. 1, 3, 4. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for cancelling supply noise, the apparatus comprising:
an input circuit including:
an amplifier having an internal node, a first input terminal, a
second input terminal, and an output terminal, wherein the first input
terminal receives an input from a charge pump; and
a filter that is coupled to the internal node; and
a drive circuit coupled to an output terminal of the amplifier of the
input circuit and to the filter, wherein the drive circuit introduces a contrary
voltage change to an output at the output terminal when a voltage source
powering the input circuit and the drive circuit is noisy such that the contrary
voltage change is contrary to a voltage change on the voltage source due to
noise.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Kamata (US 5,489,873; issued Feb. 6, 1996). Ans. 4-5.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 19,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 24, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 8, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982

3
2. The Examiner rejected claim 3, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Ans. 9.3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10-14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawago (US 2005/0237092 A1; published
Oct. 27, 2005) in view of Kamata. Ans. 5-8.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kawago in view of Kamata, and further in view of Shacter
(US 5,847,606; issued Dec. 8, 1998). Ans. 8-9.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER KAMATA
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kamata
discloses a filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) coupled to an internal node of
an amplifier (current amplifier 2), where the filter is coupled to an internal
node of the amplifier “by way of the amplifier’s output terminal.” Ans. 4-5,
9-10.
Appellant argues that the filter of Kamata is “coupled” to an output
terminal of an amplifier, not an internal node of an amplifier. App. Br. 12.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kamata discloses “a filter that is coupled to the internal node” of an

3 The Examiner’s Answer lists only claim 3 as rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Ans. 9. However, the Examiner’s
Answer also maintains every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office
Action. Ans. 3. The Final Office Action lists claims 3, 10, and 11 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Final Rej.
6-7. Accord Ans. 2 (confirming this status). We therefore address the
rejection of claims 3, 10, and 11 on this basis.
Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982

4
amplifier, where the filter is directly coupled to only the output terminal of
the amplifier?

ANALYSIS
This appeal hinges on whether Kamata’s capacitor 5b and resistor 7b,
which the Examiner maps to the claimed “filter,” is “coupled” to an internal
node of amplifier 2. We find that it is so coupled.
Claim 1 requires that the filter be “coupled” to an internal node of the
amplifier. The term “coupled” is not defined in the Specification. While the
Specification does use the term “operatively coupled” once, the use of the
two distinct terms does not define “coupled” to so limit our interpretation
See Spec. ¶ 0021. The plain meaning of “coupled” encompasses both direct
and indirect coupling. See MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447
Fed. Appx. 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (declining to limit
“electrically coupled” to direct coupling);4 see also US Patent Application
Publication 2002/0116139, at ¶ 0038 (“Herein, the phrase ‘coupled with’ is
defined to mean directly connected to or indirectly connected with through
one or more intermediate components.”).
Here, the claim does not require direct coupling. Nor does the
Specification require that such a limitation be read into the claim. On this
record, we find nothing to exclude indirect coupling via intervening circuitry
or components, as is encompassed by the term’s plain meaning.

4 Cf. Ex parte Palomar, No. 2009-011698, 2011 WL 3666727, at *2 (BPAI
2011) (non-precedential) (construing a claim reciting “directly coupled” as
excluding indirect coupling).
Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982

5
It is undisputed that Kamata’s filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) are
directly coupled to the output terminal of amplifier 2. App. Br. 11-12; Ans.
9-10. And Appellant does not dispute that Kamata’s amplifier 2 has an
internal node that is coupled, directly or indirectly, to the output terminal.
As a result, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s finding that
Kamata’s filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) is “coupled” (albeit indirectly)
to an internal node of amplifier 2. See Ans. 9 (finding that Kamata’s filter is
coupled to an internal node of the amplifier “by way of the amplifier’s output
terminal”) (emphasis added).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3-7 not separately argued with
particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3, 8,
10-14, 21, and 22. Ans. 5-10. Despite nominally arguing these claims
separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with
claim 1 and alleges that the additional cited references fail to cure those
purported deficiencies. App. Br. 13-14. We are not persuaded by these
arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1 and 3-7 under
§ 102, and (2) claims 3, 8, 10-14, 21, and 22 under § 103.

Appeal 2010-012081
Application 12/131,982

6
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21, and 22 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc