Ex Parte Jung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2010

11147686 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER C. JUNG, AMIR H. KHASHAYAR,
and GLENN SUSSMAN
____________

Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 1, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for supplying
and maintaining a constant current level at the power supply load. The
disclosed system eliminates the need for large and expensive power supplies
by providing flexibility in adjusting the current and avoiding extreme
fluctuation in the power supply load current. (Spec. 5:25-30.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:

a) pulsed load, the pulsed load drawing power during an on
interval and not drawing power during an off interval;

b) a capacitor bank energy store coupled to the pulsed load
to store energy;

c) an output driver coupled to the pulsed load and
configured to transfer energy to the pulsed load; and

d) a recharge circuitry configured to receive and level an
input current to regulate build-up of the stored energy in the capacitor
bank based on a duration of the off interval, such that the capacitor
bank is charged at a rate during the off interval.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Carpenter US 5,012,382 Apr. 30, 1991
Deaver US 5,523,665 Jun. 4, 1996
Culpepper US 2002/0074975 A1 Jun. 20, 2002
Frus US 2003/0021132 A1 Jan. 30, 2003

Claims 1-4 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Frus.
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

3
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frus and Carpenter.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frus, Carpenter, and Culpepper.
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frus and Deaver.1
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief (filed January 24, 2008, and supplemented February 21,
2008) and the Answer (mailed June 13, 2008) for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Brief have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ISSUES
Rejection over Frus
Appellants argue that Frus does not anticipate the rejected claims
because the reference relies on a combination of two flyback circuits
wherein each circuit draws energy for one half cycle and dumps energy to a
load during the other half cycle (Br. 5).2 Appellants assert that the claimed
invention, instead of relying on redundant circuits, utilizes recharge circuitry
to build up the stored energy during the off interval (id.).
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments present the following first issue:

1 The Final Rejections of the claims are repeated on pages 3-8 of the
Examiner’s Answer.
2 While the Appeal Brief included no page numbers, we make reference to
Appellants’ arguments based on the sequential pages corresponding to the
Brief filed January 24, 2008.
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

4
1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), does Frus anticipate the rejected
claims by teaching the recharge circuit, as recited in claims 1 and 12?
Rejection over Frus and Carpenter
Appellants contend that Carpenter discloses an undersized power
supply that can be shut off if it cannot keep up with the power drawn by the
load (Br. 6). In particular, Appellants argue that the invention does not rely
on a shut off switch and instead, uses a recharge circuit that receives and
levels an input current based on the duration of the off interval (id.).
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments present the following second issue:
2. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), does the combination of Frus and
Carpenter teach or suggest the claimed invention recited in claim 5?
Rejection over Frus, Carpenter, and Culpepper
Similar to the rejection of claim 5, Appellants argue that Culpepper
does not cure the deficiency of the combination of Frus and Carpenter and
instead, discloses a switching DC-DC converter that operates in continuous
and discontinuous modes (Br. 7). Appellants specifically assert that the
invention does not rely on skipping cycles and instead, uses a recharge
circuit that receives and levels an input current based on the duration of the
off interval (id.). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments present the following
third issue:
3. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), does the combination of Frus and
Carpenter with Culpepper teach or suggest the claimed invention recited in
claims 6 and 7?
Rejection over Frus and Deaver
Appellants again assert that Deaver does not cure the deficiency of
Frus and instead, discloses a capacitor discharge circuit for a power supply
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

5
that dissipates the charge within a set period of time (Br. 7). Similar to the
arguments made for claims 6 and 7 above, Appellants argue that the
invention does not have a capacitor discharge device and instead, includes a
pulsed load that draws energy from a capacitor bank and uses a recharge
circuit that receives and levels an input current based on the duration of the
off interval (Br. 7-8). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments present the
following fourth issue:
4. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), does the combination of Frus and
Deaver teach or suggest the claimed invention recited in claims 8-10?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issues
involved in the appeal.
Frus
1. Frus discloses a power supply which includes, as depicted in
Figure 1, a control circuit 4 for activating one of the multiple flyback circuits
5a, 5b, etc. and drawing input power from a source. (¶ (0020).)
2. Frus further discloses that after storing sufficient energy during
the “charging cycle,” the stored energy is transferred to the load during the
“flyback cycle.” (Id.)
3. Frus provides for feedback signals 15a and 15b that cause the
control logic 4 to terminate the charge cycle after sufficient energy has been
stored and to start the charge cycle of another flyback circuit. (¶ (0021).)
4. Frus discloses a duty cycle of 50% for dual interleaved systems
(¶ (0022)) while other numbers of interleaved phases are permitted (¶
(0035)).
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

6
Carpenter
5. Carpenter discloses a transformer-based power conditioner to
supply pulsed power requirements while keeping the source impedance low
and the system size small. (Col. 3, ll. 3-7.)
6. Carpenter provides for a thermal switch that shuts off input
power if the transformer overheats. (Col. 4, ll. 28-34.)
7. Carpenter describes the output connection to a load having a
duty cycle of less than fifty percent. (Col. 7, ll. 33-36.)
Culpepper
8. Culpepper discloses a switching DC-to-DC converter that has a
duty cycle determined by a feedback signal indicative of the converter’s
output potential making the duty cycle independent of the current drawn
from the converter. (Abstract.)
Deaver
9. Deaver discloses power supply wherein a bleeder resistor across
the filter capacitor facilitates its discharge. (Col. 2, ll. 12-17.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(citing
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Also See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

7
that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
2. Obviousness
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).

ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection over Frus
Appellants’ arguments challenging the Examiner’s position rejecting
claims 1 and 12 as being anticipated by Frus are not persuasive. Contrary to
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5), including redundant circuits represented by
multiple flyback circuits disclosed in Frus is not precluded by the claims. In
fact, the control circuit 4 of Frus, which activates one of the flyback circuits
to draw input power from the input source (FF 1), meets the claimed
recharge circuitry. The control circuit 4 further facilitates transferring the
stored energy during the charging cycle to the load when the feedback
signals 15a and 15b indicates that sufficient energy has been stored (FF 2-3).
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that the control circuit 4 causes
each flyback circuit to start charging in the off interval during the charging
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

8
cycle while the other flyback circuit transfers its stored energy to the load
during its flyback cycle (FF 2-3). As such, each flyback circuit charges
energy at a rate during the off interval resulting in a duty cycle of 50% for a
dual interleaved system (FF 4).
Therefore, Frus anticipates the rejected claims by teaching the
recharge circuit, as recited in claims 1 and 12. With respect to the remaining
claims that are rejected as anticipated by Frus, Appellants present no
separate arguments (Br. 5). In the absence of a separate argument with
respect to those claims, they fall with the representative independent claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-4, 11,
and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also sustained.
§ 103 Rejection over Frus and Carpenter
Appellants’ argument (Br. 6) that Carpenter does not cure the alleged
deficiencies of Frus because Carpenter relies on a switch for shutting off
power in case of overheating is not persuasive. As pointed out by the
Examiner (Ans. 10-11), the teaching value of Carpenter is using a duty cycle
of less than fifty percent (FF 7) while the disclosed thermal switch provides
an additional safety feature for preventing overheating (FF 5-6). Because an
additional thermal switch is not precluded by claim 5, the Examiner’s
position combining Frus and Carpenter is reasonable and we will sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5 over Frus and Carpenter.
§ 103 Rejection over Frus, Carpenter, and Culpepper
Similarly, Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding this
rejection and assert (Br. 6-7) that Culpepper does not cure the alleged
deficiencies of Frus because Culpepper discloses a switching DC-DC
converter that operates in continuous and discontinuous modes. However,
Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

9
the Examiner relies on Culpepper for disclosing a substantially constant
input current both within and outside the load duty cycle (Ans. 12; See FF
8). Furthermore, while Culpepper may include continuous and
discontinuous modes, we do not find that the recited features of claims 6 and
7 preclude Culpepper’s skipping cycle while requiring the constant current.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 7 over
Frus, Carpenter, and Culpepper.
§ 103 Rejection over Frus and Deaver
Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7-8) challenging the combined teachings
of Frus and Deaver are not persuasive. The Examiner relies on Deaver for
teaching a bleed circuitry for regulating the discharge of the stored energy
(Ans. 7-8; See FF 9). Thus, we disagree with Appellants’ assertion (Br. 7)
that the combination is improper because Deaver in column 4 describes
discharging within a set period of time based on the breadth of the claims
and the fact that such time limit is not precluded by Appellants’ claims 8-10.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 8-10 over Frus and
Deaver is sustained.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Frus anticipates the rejected claims by teaching the recharge circuit, as
recited in claims 1-4 and 11-20 and in combination with Carpenter,
Culpepper, or Deaver teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter recited
in claims 5-10.

Appeal 2009-004489
Application 11/147,686

10
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 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

ALCON
IP LEGAL, TB4-8
6201 SOUTH FREEWAY
FORT WORTH, TX 76134