Ex Parte LIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201713855163 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 13/855,163 04/02/2013 Kim LI 81426430US03 7733 65913 7590 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER GBLENDE, JEFFREY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2017 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): ip. department .u s @ nxp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIM LI Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 2-16 of Application 13/855,163 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (November 10, 2014). Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE. 1 NXP B.V. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 BACKGROUND The ’ 163 Application describes a controller for a voltage regulator. Spec. 1. In particular, the controller allows the regulator to switch between switching and linear modes of operation and is further adapted to allow a third mode of operation in which the input voltage is coupled directly to an output terminal. Id. at 2. Claim 16 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced below: 16. A voltage regulator circuit comprising: a voltage regulator; and a controller, the controller being switchable between the first and second modes of operation in which the controller is configured to control the voltage regulator to operate in switching and linear modes respectively, wherein the controller is further configured to response to an input voltage to the voltage regulator to enter a third motive operation in which the input voltage is coupled directly to an output terminal. Appeal Br. 17-18 (Claims App.) (some paragraphing and indentation added). 2 Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 16, 2, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm2 and Inoue.3 Final Act. 5. 2. Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, Inoue, and Petty.4 Final Act. 6. 3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, Inoue, and Hartular.5 Final Act. 9. 4. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, Inoue, and Teggatz.6 Final Act. 9. 5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, Inoue, Teggatz, and Ye.7 Final Act. 10. 2 US 2012/0019220 Al, published January 26, 2012. 3 US 2006/0006850 Al, published January 12, 2006. 4 US 2010/0026250 Al, published February 4, 2010. 5 US 2006/0087303 Al, published April 27, 2006. 6 US 2012/0293021 Al, published November 22, 2012 7 US 7,852,640 D2, issued December 14, 2010. 3 Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, in a way, Petty, and Brunt et al.8 Final Act. 11. 7. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm, Inoue, Petty, Brunt, and Cronmiller.9 Final Act. 12. DISCUSSION We begin by considering the rejection of claim 16—the sole independent claim on appeal. The Examiner rejected claims 16 as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm and Inoue. Final Act. 5. After consideration of the record, Appellant’s Briefs, and the Examiner’s Answer, we reverse this rejection for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis. In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner found that Grimm “does not disclose that the controller is further configured to respond to an input voltage to the voltage regulator to enter a third mode of operation in which the input voltage is coupled directly to an output terminal.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner further found that Inoue describes a controller that is configured to respond to an input voltage to enter a third mode of operation in which the input voltage is directly connected to one of the output terminals based upon the operation of switch 5. Id. This factual finding is erroneous. 8 US 6,717,383 Bl, issued April 6, 2004; hereinafter “Brunt”. 9 US 2012/0074869 Al, published March 29, 2012. 4 Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 As Appellant argues, Inoue’s power supply has a voltage regulator with two modes of operation. The voltage regulator is in the first mode of operation when the battery is discharging and is in the second mode of operation when the battery is charging. Inoue Fig. 7 and associated text. In both of these modes, switch 5 is turned on or off based upon the relationship between the input voltage and the output voltage of the battery. See generally id. ]Hf 183—189. Accordingly, the Examiner erred by finding that Inoue describes a third mode of operation based upon the operation of switch 5. Because Inoue does not describe a third mode of operation for the voltage regulator in its power supply, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 16. We, therefore, are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over the combination of Grimm and Inoue. Because we have reversed the rejection of independent claim 16, we also reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 11, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 16 and also are subject to a rejection based upon the combination of Grimm and Inoue. The Examiner further rejected dependent claims 4—10 and 12—15 as unpatentable over Grimm and Inoue in combination with one or more additional references. The Examiner did not make factual findings with respect to any of these additional references that cure the defects discussed in our reversal of the rejection of independent claim 16. See generally Final Act., Answer. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of these claims. 5 Appeal 2015-005894 Application 13/855,163 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—16 of the ’ 163 Application. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation