Ex Parte Jun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2018

14814738 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/814,738 07/31/2015
23494 7590 07/12/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhang Jun
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-73635 9603
EXAMINER
GANNON, LEVI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2018 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 ZHANG JUN, Y AOHUA PAN, LINA BAO, and
ZHIWEIHE
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
22.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Application No. 14/814,738, titled Fault Detection and Self-Recovery
Method for Crystal Oscillator, filed July 31, 2015 ("Spec."). The real party
in interest is identified as Texas Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Brief
filed November 21, 2016 ("App. Br."), 1.
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification provides that embodiments of the invention "relate
to oscillators and more particularly to oscillator fault detection and self-
recovery." Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. Circuitry for providing an oscillating output signal m
connection with an integrated circuit chip, comprising:
a crystal, off the chip;
oscillator circuitry, on the chip, for electrically coupling
with the off-chip crystal and operable to produce the oscillating
output signal;
testing circuitry, on the chip, for evaluating whether the
oscillating output signal is operating within an acceptable
frequencyrange;and
operational recovery circuitry, on the chip, for attempting
to restore the oscillating output signal, in response to the testing
circuitry evaluating that the oscillating output signal is not
operating within the acceptable frequency range.
App. Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Westwick
Nicholls
Eto
Okamoto
us 5,446,420
US 7,015,762 Bl
US 8,081,014 B2
US 2015/0028956 Al
2
Aug. 29, 1995
Mar. 21, 2006
Dec. 20, 2011
Jan.29,2015
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 16-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Westwick. Act. 3. 2
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Okamoto. Act. 7.
OPINION
Anticipation
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding claim 1
anticipated because W estwick "teaches away" from an "oscillator circuitry,
on the chip" as recited in claim 1. 3 App. Br. 3. According to Appellants,
Westwick's teaching that "[r]esistor 302 and capacitors 303 and 304 are
normally off-chip, ... but may be integrated in embodiments requiring
relatively-small value or in pulled-crystal oscillators" teaches away from this
particular claim limitation. Westwick 12:19-24 (cited in App. Br. 3).
2 We refer to the Non-Final Action mailed June 21, 2016 ("Act."). We note
that a Non-Final Action and a Final Action were issued December 22, 2015
and March 31, 2016, respectively.
3 Appellants do not present separate arguments for independent claims 1 and
18 for the anticipation rejection. App. Br. 3. Appellants state that dependent
claims stand or fall with the independent claims from which they depend.
Id. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013),
claim 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 16-19, 21, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1 with regard
to the anticipation rejection based on Westwick. Claims 6 and 20 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westwick in
view of Eto. Act. 5. Appellants state that they stand or fall with claim 1 and
claim 18, respectively. App. Br. 3. The rejection of claims 6 and 20 over
Westwick in view of Eto therefore stands or falls with claim 1. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
"A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention,
the reference then disparages it. Thus, the question whether a reference
'teaches away' from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation
analysis." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). In addition to the fact that whether
a reference teaches away is an irrelevant inquiry in an anticipation rejection,
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner's finding that W estwick
describes inverter 305 that is integrated on the chip. Compare App. Br. 3,
with Act. 3, Ans. 3--4.4 No reversible error has been identified in the
Examiner's findings with regard to the anticipation rejection.
Obviousness
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
Nicholls teaches or suggests a "testing circuitry, [ on the chip], for evaluating
whether the oscillating output signal is operating within an acceptable
frequency range" as recited in claim 1. 5 App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that
the prior art oscillator adjusts for frequency drift based on temperature and
4 We refer to the Examiner's Answer mailed January 13, 2017 ("Ans."). No
Reply Brief was submitted.
5 Appellants do not present separate arguments for independent claims 1 and
18 for the obviousness rejection. App. Br. 4. Appellants state that
dependent claims stand or fall with the independent claims from which they
depend. Id. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013), claim 3-5, 10-15, 18, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1 with regard
to the obviousness rejection. Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Nicholls in view of Okamoto and Eto.
Act. 10. Appellants state that they stand or fall with claim 1 and claim 18,
respectively. App. Br. 3. The rejection of claims 6 and 20 over Nicholls in
view of Okamoto and Eto therefore stands or falls with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
not the difference in phase between an input signal and a reference signal
detected by prior art digital phase detector 115. Id.
The Examiner, on the other hand, finds that Nicholls teaches that the
oscillation frequency of the oscillator "is controlled in response to the phase
detector output." Ans. 5 (citing Nicholls Abstract). The Examiner also
points to Nicholls' teaching that the "output of the digital phase detector 115
is the phase error between the reference signal 125 and the frequency
divided output signal 133 in terms of the number of cycles of the frequency
multiplied output signal 134" and that the phase detector 115 may "adjust
the output voltage ... so that the phase difference between the input
reference timing signal 125 and the frequency divided output signal 133 is
minimized." Id. ( citing Nicholls 11:50-65). The Examiner finds that
Nicholls teaches that the "frequency of the oscillator may be "steer[ ed]" "to
provide the base station reference timing signal 217 having a frequency"
based on "the frequency of the input reference timing signal 125" whereas
"in the event that no input reference signal is available," an algorithm may
nonetheless "correct the frequency of the oscillator" based on a "predicted
frequency." Id. (citing Nicholls Abstract, 11:60-65). Appellants do not
address these portions of the prior art teachings, nor does Appellants'
unelaborated argument identify reversible error in the Examiner's finding
that a skilled artisan would have arrived at the "testing circuitry, on the chip,
for evaluating whether the oscillating output signal is operating within an
acceptable frequency range" based on these prior art teachings. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("'[R]eversible error' means that the
applicant must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong"); cf
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
5
Appeal2017-009427
Application 14/814, 73 8
2006)("[M]ere statements of disagreement ... do not amount to a developed
argument.").
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6