Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12967108 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/967,108 12/14/2010
109673 7590 09/02/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chia-Liang Lin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
251812-2900 1006
EXAMINER
CHEN,SIBIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIA-LIANG LIN1
Appeal2013-006663
Application 12/967,108
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1and11 over
You et al. (US 7,668,279 Bl, issued Feb. 23, 2010) ("You") in view of
Matsuda et al. (US 6,064,243, issued May 16, 2000) ("Matsuda") and
dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-20 over these references alone
or in combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Realtek Semiconductor Corporation is identified as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-006663
Application 12/967,108
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims an apparatus comprising: a charge pump 110 to
receive a phase signal and to output a current lout flowing between an
internal node 105 and an output node 107; a capacitive load 120 coupled to
the output node; a current source 160 controlled by a bias voltage VBP to
output a compensation current le to the output node; a current sensor 140
coupled between the internal node and the output node to sense the current
(i.e., lout); and a feedback network 150 to generate the bias voltage VBP in
accordance with an output of the current sensor (independent claim 1, Fig.
1 ). Appellant also claims a method for compensating charge leakage of a
charge pump comprising steps corresponding to elements of the claim 1
apparatus including the step of detecting a current signal lout from a charge
pump 110 using a current sensor 140 (independent claim 11, Fig. 1 ).
A copy of representative claims 1 and 11, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus compnsmg:
a charge pump to receive a phase signal representing a result of a
phase detection and to output a current flowing between an internal node of
the charge pump and an output node of the charge pump;
a capacitive load coupled to the output node;
a current source controlled by a bias voltage to output a compensation
current to the output node;
a current sensor coupled between the internal node and the output
node to sense the current; and
a feedback network to generate the bias voltage in accordance with an
output of the current sensor.
11. A method for compensating charge leakage of a charge pump, the
method comprising:
pump;
receiving a phase signal representing a result of a phase detection;
converting the phase signal into a current signal using the charge
2
Appeal2013-006663
Application 12/967,108
transmitting the current signal into a capacitive load;
detecting the current signal using a current sensor;
injecting a compensation current into the capacitive load in
accordance with a control voltage; and
adapting the control voltage using a feedback network in accordance
with an output of the current sensor. 2
Regarding the current sensor limitations of the independent claims,
the Examiner finds that "figure 9 of You et al. teaches an apparatus
comprising ... a current sensor [904] coupled between the internal node and
the output node to sense the current" (Final Action 2 (bracketing in
original)). More specifically, the Examiner finds that "the capacitor 909 in
904 senses and is subsequently charged by the incoming current Icp [from
You's charge pump]; thus, it is a current sensor" (Ans. 8).
Appellant argues "the Examiner's allegation that capacitor 909
'senses' [a current] is completely unsupported and consequently misplaced"
(Reply Br. 4). According to Appellant, "You never characterizes the
capacitor 909 as a sensor, which confirms that the Examiner has apparently
misunderstood the purpose or operation of capacitor 909 (nor has the
Examiner offered an explanation for his interpretation of this element - but
rather merely asserted a conclusion that the element is a current sensor)" (id.
at 5).
2 Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the Examining Corps,
the Appellant and the Examiner should consider whether the claim 11
recitation "injecting a compensation current into the capacitive load"
(underlining added) should be changed to "injecting a compensation current
into an output node" in order to be consistent with the disclosures of Figure
1 and Specification paragraph [0007] (see, e.g., Spec. 4:7).
3
Appeal2013-006663
Application 12/967,108
Appellant's argument is persuasive. The Examiner does not identify
any disclosure in You that describes capacitor 909 as a current sensor or as
performing the function of sensing a current. Moreover, the Examiner does
not provide any analysis to show that it is reasonable and consistent with
Appellant's disclosure to interpret the claim term "current sensor" as
encompassing the capacitor of You. Based on the record before us, the
Examiner's finding that You' s capacitor satisfies the current sensor
limitation of the independent claims is impermissibly based on a mere
conclusory statement.
Therefore, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejections of the appealed
claims.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4