Ex Parte Leech et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

11262579 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PHILLIP A. LEECH, KHALDOUN ALZIEN, and
WILLIAM R. JACOBS
____________

Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-30. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
1. A printed circuit board assembly, comprising:
a printed circuit board including a processor;
a heat sink mountable to the printed circuit board
proximate the processor; and
a system management logic module comprising logic
instructions stored in a computer readable medium which, when
executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
initiate a processor load routine;
obtain temperature gradient data in a region
proximate the processor during the processor load
routine; and
verify operation of the heat sink using the
temperature gradient data.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 15-18, 20-24, and 26-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Pub.
No. 2006/0117779 Al ("Liebenow") and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2002/0172005 Al ("Ford").
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebenow, Ford, and U.S. Patent
Application Pub. No. 2005/0099172 A ("Durham").
Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liebenow, Ford, and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2006/0005097 Al ("Ichikawa").

DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24, 26, and 29 over Liebenow and Ford on the basis
Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
3
of claim 1; the appeal of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 27, and 28
over Liebenow and Ford on the basis of claim 2; the appeal of claims 4, 5, 9,
10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham collectively; and
the appeal of claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa
collectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The issues before us follow.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Liebenow would have suggested
a circuit board assembly initiates a processor load routine as part of a
temperature management protocol, as argued regarding representative claim
1, and the processor is configured to initiate a series of calculations that
consumes significant processor resources, as argued regarding representative
claim 2?
Did the Examiner error in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 25, 29, and
30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham and in rejecting claims 14 and 19 over
Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa?
[A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden
of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection
and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently
articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice
requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132. As the statute itself instructs,
the examiner must "notify the applicant," "stating the reasons
for such rejection," "together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging the propriety of
continuing prosecution of his application." 35 U.S.C. § 132.

In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2011).
Here, the Examiner makes the following "specific fact finding," Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10,
Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
4
2009) (informative), regarding Liebenow and the following specific claim
construction regarding claims 1 and 2.
The Examiner interpreted a processor load routine in
light of appellant's instant specification as a series of
calculations (paragraph [0023] e.g., 'a processor load routine
may be implemented as a series of calculations that consume
significant processor resources. . . . . Alternate
implementations of a load routine may include any other
processor-intensive operations such as, e.g., mathematical
computations')
In the instant case, Leibenow teaches a thermal
management control circuit ([Figure 1-element 110]) that
monitors the temperature of a heat producing electronic
component-160, possibly taking measurements at periodic
intervals. ([0017], [0018], [0019], [Figure 1], [Figure 2]) A
series of calculations are applied to the measurements to
determine a rate of change ([Figure 2], [0019])
The Examiner respectfully asserts that the thermal
management system ([Figure 1]) comprises a routine ([Figure
2]) implementing a series of mathematical computations (e.g.,
processor load routine) to determine the rate of temperature
changes within the system.

. . . .

The Examiner respectfully asserts that a series of
calculations, as per Figure 2, demonstrate that processor
resources are consumed. Appellant does not define 'significant.'
(Ans. 8-9.)
For their part, the Appellants do not address these findings and claim
construction. Instead, they merely argue that "Liebenow describes nothing
more than controlling a fan" (App. Br. 11) and "[n]othing in [Paragraphs 017
and 018 of Liebenow] discloses (or even suggests) an arrangement in which
Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
5
a processor is configured to initiate a series of calculations that consumes
significant processor resources." (App. Br. 12)
These arguments "do not . . . explain why the Examiner's explicit fact
finding is in error," Belinne, at *4, nor the Examiner's specific claim
construction is in error.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding
Liebenow would have suggested a circuit board assembly initiates a
processor load routine as part of a temperature management protocol, as
argued regarding representative claim 1, and the processor is configured to
initiate a series of calculations that consumes significant processor
resources, as argued regarding representative claim 2.
"Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de
novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present
arguments on a particular issue . . . the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations
omitted).
Here, the Appellants present no arguments regarding the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham or the
rejection of claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in in rejecting
claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham and
in rejecting claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa.

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-30.
Appeal 2010-004466
Application 11/262,579
6
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb