Ex Parte Keeth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2005

09885217 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRENT KEETH
and LAYNE G. BUNKER
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejecion of
claims 223, 225, 228-237, 247-250, 496, and 499-515.
The claimed invention relates to a voltage reference circuit
for supplying a reference voltage in which an active reference
circuit receives an external voltage and produces a reference
signal having a desired relationship with the external voltage.
The active reference circuit includes a current source utilizing
a current mirror to provide current to a diode stack having an
adjustable impedance. Further included is a unity gain amplifier
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
2
acting in response to the reference signal, which is dependent on
the external voltage, for producing the reference voltage.
Claim 223 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
223. A voltage reference circuit responsive to an external
voltage for supplying a reference voltage, comprising:
an active reference circuit for receiving the external
voltage and for producing a reference signal having a desired
relationship with the external voltage, said active reference
circuit comprising a current source utilizing a current mirror
for providing current to a diode stack having an adjustable
impedance, wherein said reference signal is dependent upon said
external voltage; and
a unity gain amplifier responsive to said reference signal
for producing the reference voltage.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Hayakawa et al. (Hayakawa) 5,184,031 Feb. 02, 1993
Park 5,448,199 Sep. 05, 1995
Morishita et al. (Morishita) 5,757,175 May 26, 1998
(filed Jan. 13, 1997)
Zarrabian et al. (Zarrabian) 5,838,076 Nov. 17, 1998
(filed Nov. 21, 1996)
Tsay et al. (Tsay) 6,127,881 Oct. 03, 2000
(filed May 31, 1994)
Claims 223 and 511 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Morishita. Claims 225, 496,
499, 500, and 514 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Morishita in view of Zarrabian.
Claims 228-230 and 501-503 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 18, 2004. In response to
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 3, 2004, a Reply Brief was
filed July 19, 2004, which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication mailed November 5,
2004.
3
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morishita in view of Park.
Claims 231, 504, 512, and 515 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsay in view of
Morishita. Claims 232, 233, 505, and 506 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayakawa in
view of Tsay and Morishita. Claims 234-237, 247-250, 507-510,
and 513 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hayakawa in view of Tsay, Morishita, and Park.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejections, and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
4
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Morishita fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 223 and 511. In addition, we are of the
opinion that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 225 and 228-237, 247-250, 496, 499-510, and 512-515.
Accordingly, we affirm.
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate (Brief, page
3) that, for purposes of this appeal, all claims will stand or
fall together. Consistent with this indication, Appellants’
arguments in the Brief are directed solely to features which are
set forth in independent claim 223. Accordingly, we will select
independent claim 223 as the representative claim for all the
claims on appeal, and claims 225, 228-237, 247-250, 496, and 499-
515 will stand or fall with claim 223. Note In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We note that anticipation is established only when a single
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
5
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
At pages 3, 4, 10, and 11 of the Answer, the Examiner
indicates how the various limitations in representative claim 223
are read on the disclosure of Morishita. In particular, the
Examiner directs attention to the illustrations in Figures 17-19
of Morishita along with the accompanying description beginning at
column 1, line 66 of Morishita.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with
evidence and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
prima facie case. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
6
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner
has not shown how each of the claimed features are present in the
disclosure of Morishita so as to establish a case of
anticipation. In particular, Appellants contend that, in
contrast to the claimed invention, “Morishita fails to teach a
voltage reference circuit that includes a unity gain amplifier
for producing a reference voltage in response to a reference
signal.” (Brief, page 4).
After careful review of the Morishita reference in light of
the arguments of record, however, we are in general agreement
with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. We find no
arguments from Appellants that convince us of any error in the
Examiner’s position which, considering the entire circuitry
illustrated in Figure 17 of Morishita as a voltage reference
circuit, asserts that the amplifier circuit comprising elements
CMP and DT in Morishita is a unity gain amplifier. We further
agree with the Examiner that Morishita’s unity gain amplifier
produces a reference voltage as claimed since the reference
voltage Vref is maintained at the internal power supply voltage
INVcc level.
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
7
We further find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument
(Reply Brief, page 2) that, unlike the claimed invention, the
reference signal in Morishita does not have a desired
relationship with the external voltage. In support of this
contention, Appellants rely on certain portions of Morishita
which, in their view, suggest that no reference voltage is
produced until the external voltage exceeds a predetermined
voltage level.
It is our opinion, however, that even assuming, arguendo,
that Appellants’ characterization of the operation of the
circuitry of Morishita is correct, such circuit operation in fact
satisfies the language of claim 223. In other words, the fact
alone that a reference voltage in Morishita may not be produced
until an external voltage exceeds a prescribed level establishes,
in our view, a desired relationship with such external voltage.
Similarly, the reliance on the attaining of a voltage level by
the external voltage in Morishita before a reference voltage is
produced makes Morishita’s reference voltage dependent on the
external voltage as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation has not been overcome by any
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
8
convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of representative claim 223, as well as claims
225, 228-237, 247-250, 496, and 499-515 which fall with claim
223, is sustained. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 223, 225, 228-237, 247-250, 496, and 499-515 is
affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
onnection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective September 13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFS/kis
EDWARDS L. PENCOSKE
Appeal No. 2005-1576
Application No. 09/885,217
10
THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG, L.L.P.
ONE OXFORD CENTRE
301 GRANT STREET, 14TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-1425