Ex Parte JurzitzaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201411049777 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/049,777 02/01/2005 Dieter Jurzitza HI05001USU (P01044US) 2417 50811 7590 12/12/2014 O''Shea Getz P.C. 1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912 SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115 EXAMINER BELLO, AGUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2637 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/12/2014 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 DIETER JURZITZA ____________________ Appeal 2012-0104051 Application 11/049,777 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 24–27, and 29–38. Claims 7, 9, 22, 23, and 28 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Dieter Jurzitza . App Br. 6. Appeal 2012-010405 Application 11/049,777 2 Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented an optical detector circuit containing a preamplifier (T 115), which upon receiving a detection signal generated by a photodetector (D1) coupled thereto, amplifies the signal to generate a low noise pre-amplified signal subsequently amplified by an amplifier circuit (123). Spec. ¶¶ 016–018, and 027. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows: An optical detector circuit comprising: a photodetector including an optical input, the photodetector configured for generating a detection signal; a pre-amplifier including a pre-amplifier input coupled to the photodetector and a pre-amplifier output, the pre-amplifier configured for amplifying the detection signal and generating a low-noise, pre-amplified signal; an amplifier including an amplifier input and an amplifier output for generating an output signal, the amplifier input coupled to the pre-amplifier output; and a bias voltage source coupled in parallel to the optical input and to the pre-amplifier input. Prior Art Relied Upon Zimmerman US RE 35 762 April 7, 1998 Van Der Heijden US 5,933,264 August 3, 1999 Alameh US 6,118,567 September 12, 2000 Matsumoto US 6,410,902 B1 June 25, 2002 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Appeal 2012-010405 Application 11/049,777 3 1. Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16–21, 24–27, and 29–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Alameh and Van Der Heijden. 2. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Alameh, Van Der Heijden, and Zimmerman. 3. Claims 11, 12, and 36–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Alameh, Van Der Heijden, and Zimmerman. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9–13.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Alameh and Van Der Heijden teaches or suggests a pre-amplifier configured for amplifying a detection signal and for generating a low-noise, pre-amplified signal, as recited in claim 1? Appellant argues that the proffered combination does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 9–12. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 21, 2012), and the Answer (mailed April 13, 2012) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-010405 Application 11/049,777 4 According to Appellant, Alameh’s disclosed transformer is only capable of limiting current to prevent current overload in a front end receiver; whereas the claimed pre-amplifier uses a transformer capable of producing a low- noise, pre-amplified signal. Id. In response, the Examiner finds because Alameh’s disclosed transformer is structurally similar to the transformer embodied as a pre- amplifier in Appellant’s Specification, Alameh’s transformer is similarly capable of producing a low noise, pre-amplified signal. Ans. 10–13. Based upon our review of the record before us, we find error with the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. In particular, we do not agree with the Examiner Alameh’s transformer is structurally similar to the transformer embodied in the claimed pre-amplifier. Alameh discloses “a front end transformer (202) used to prevent overloading the receiver front end under strong interference illumination.” Alameh col. 5, ll. 24–28. Alameh also discloses ac-coupling the transformer with a transimpedance stage (204) having a resistor (206) to pre-amplify the generated electrical current. Id. at 28–31. Additionally, Alameh discloses using a low pass filter (208) to filter out the pre-amplified signal to thereby achieve an optimal signal-to-noise ratio. Id. at 31–33. We agree with Appellant Alameh’s transformer is limited to performing the function of performing current overloading in the receiver. Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Alameh’s transformer is structurally similar to the transformer embodied in the pre-amplifier is not supported by the record before us. Because Appeal 2012-010405 Application 11/049,777 5 Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we need not reach the merits of these arguments. Because claims 2–6, 8, 10–21, 24–27, and 29–38 also recite the disputed limitations above, Appellant has similarly shown error in the rejections of those claims for the foregoing reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 24–27, and 29–38 as set forth above. REVERSED cam Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation