11120689 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2009)

Ex Parte Mack

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 28, 2009

11120689 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL PETER MACK ____________ Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided:1 July 28, 2009 ____________ Before, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 17-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a constant current generator for producing an output current that is constant with respect to temperature (Spec. ¶¶ [0008], [0024]; Figs. 2-4; cls. 17-19). Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 17. A constant current generator comprising: a bandgap reference circuit; a gain stage connected in operative relation to the bandgap reference circuit; and a current mirror circuit connected in operative relation to the gain stage for outputting a predetermined reference current, wherein the current mirror circuit is separate from the bandgap reference circuit. REFERENCES Yu US 6,489,835 B1 Dec. 3, 2002 Cherek US 2006/0132223 A1 Jun. 22, 2006 (filed Dec. 22, 2004) The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Yu.2,3 The Examiner rejected claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Cherek. 2 The Examiner rejected claim 19 over Yu under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in the Final Office Action mailed December 15, 2006. However, the Examiner noted that this rejection of claim 19 was a typographical error (Ans. 6). 3 Claim 16 was cancelled by Appellant in the Appeal Brief filed August 28, 2007. Appellant further acknowledged, in the Appeal Brief filed February 12, 2008, that claim 16 has been cancelled and is not on appeal. Thus, it is clear from the record that claim 16 has been cancelled. Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 3 Appellant contends Yu fails to disclose a current mirror circuit as recited in claims 17 and 18 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2).4 Appellant also contends Cherek fails to disclose a gain stage and a current mirror circuit wherein the current mirror circuit is separate from a bandgap reference circuit as recited in claims 17 and 18 (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3). Additionally, Appellant contends that Cherek does not disclose the resistors recited in claim 19 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3). ISSUES Did Appellant establish that the Examiner erred in finding Yu teaches a constant current generator having a current mirror circuit? Did Appellant establish that the Examiner erred in finding Cherek teaches a gain stage and a current mirror circuit wherein the current mirror circuit is separate from a bandgap reference circuit? Did Appellant establish that the Examiner erred in finding Cherek teaches the resistors recited in claim 19? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant’s constant current generator includes a bandgap reference circuit, a gain stage, and a current mirror circuit (Spec. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0024]; Figs. 2-4). The current mirror circuit includes PMOS transistors 201, 205, 211, and 215 (Figs. 2, 4; Spec. ¶ [0029]). The bandgap reference circuit includes transistors 204, and 208, and resistors 203, 207, and 209 (Figs. 2, 4; Spec. ¶ [0028]). The bandgap reference circuit 4 The Appeal Brief filed February 12, 2008, is referred to throughout this opinion. Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 4 generates two temperature-sensitive differential node voltages (Figs. 2, 4; Spec. ¶¶ [0024], [0028]). The gain stage, e.g., an operational amplifier 210 (“op-amp”), receives the two differential node voltages from the bandgap reference circuit and produces a temperature-compensated output (Spec. ¶¶ [0008], [0009]; Figs. 2, 4). This output from the gain stage controls the current mirror circuit to produce a constant current (Spec. ¶ [0015], [0029]; Figs. 2, 4). 2. Yu teaches a bandgap reference circuit that includes transistors 16 and 17 and resistor R1 (18) (col. 1, ll. 23-25, 31-36; Fig. 1). The bandgap reference circuit is connected to two inputs of an op-amp 15 (col. 1, ll. 25- 30; Fig. 1). An output of the op-amp is connected to interconnected gate inputs of PMOS transistors 12, 13, and 22 (col. 1, ll. 25-40; Fig. 1). PMOS transistor 22 is electrically coupled to the gate inputs of PMOS transistors 32 and 33 (col. 1, ll. 37-52; Fig. 1). PMOS transistor 33 provides an Iout current source (col. 1, ll. 51-52; Fig. 1). 3. Cherek shows a “conventional bandgap reference circuit” (¶¶ [0012], [0015]; Figs. 1A, 1B). The bandgap reference circuit includes pnp transistors 12 and 14 (¶ [0012]; Fig. 1A). An op-amp 22 is coupled to the pnp transistors (¶ [0012]; Fig. 1A). The output of the op-amp drives the interconnected gate inputs of PMOS transistors 18, 20, and 24 (Fig. 1A). 4. The ordinary and customary meaning of the term separate is “being or standing apart” (Dictionary.com, Copyright 2009, Dictionary.com, LLC. All rights reserved; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/separate). Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., Inc., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Where no explicit definition for a term is given in the specification, the term should be given its ordinary meaning and broadest reasonable interpretation. E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation, 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). ANALYSIS Anticipation of Claims 17 and 18 by Yu The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yu (Ans. 4). Appellant argues this rejection with respect to claims 17 and 18 (App. Br. 7). Since arguments Appellant presented with respect to dependent claim 18 are the same as those concerning independent claim 17, these claims stand or fall together. This rejection is addressed with respect to representative claim 17. The Examiner finds that Yu teaches a constant current generator including a bandgap reference circuit, a gain stage and a current mirror (Ans. 4). Appellant contends that the limitation in claim 17, “a current mirror circuit connected in operative relation to the gain stage . . . wherein the current mirror circuit is separate from the bandgap reference circuit,” is not shown in Yu (App. Br. 7). Referring to Fig. 1, Yu teaches a bandgap reference circuit, a gain stage, and a current mirror circuit forming a current generator (FF 2). Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 6 Appellant contends that Yu’s bipolar transistors 16 and 17 and resistor R1 correspond to Appellant’s bandgap reference circuit and not the current mirror as asserted by the Examiner (FF 1, FF 2). However, although Appellant is correct, Yu’s PMOS transistors 12, 13, 22, 32, and 33 correspond to Appellant’s current mirror circuit (FF 1, FF 2). Further, the op-amp 15 corresponds to Appellant’s gain stage (op-amp 210) (FF 1, FF 2). The gain stage drives the current mirror circuit (FF 2). Thus, Yu’s current mirror circuit is in operative relationship to the gain stage as is Appellant’s current mirror circuit. Further, as shown in Yu’s Fig. 1, the bandgap reference circuit is a circuit separate from the current mirror circuit. Thus, Yu teaches all the elements of claim 17. Accordingly, Yu anticipates claims 17 and 18. Anticipation of Claims 17-19 by Cherek The Examiner rejected claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Cherek (Ans. 5). Appellant argues this rejection separately with respect to claims 17 and 19 (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3). As aforementioned, claim 18 stands or falls with claim 17. With respect to claim 17, Appellant asserts that Cherek fails to disclose a gain stage and a current mirror circuit, the current mirror circuit being separate from a bandgap reference circuit as required by claim 17 (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3). Cherek shows in Fig. 2B, and more fully in Fig. 1B, a bandgap reference circuit, a gain stage, and a current mirror circuit (FF 3). Specifically, bipolar transistors 12 and 14 and resistor 16 correspond to Appellant’s bandgap reference circuit (FF 1, FF 3). The op-amp 22 corresponds to Appellant’s gain stage (op-amp 210) (FF 1, FF 3). Finally, Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 7 Cherek teaches PMOS transistors 18, 20, and 24 that correspond to Appellant’s current mirror circuit (FF 1, FF 3). The source inputs of these transistors are commonly connected to a positive voltage source and their gate inputs are commonly driven by an output of the gain stage, thus functioning as a current mirror (FF1, FF 3). Appellant contends that the current mirror circuit is “separate” from the bandgap reference circuit. However, Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “separate.” Thus, this term is given its ordinary meaning of “being or standing apart” (FF 4). E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation, 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This definition does not preclude the bandgap reference circuit of Cherek being separate from the circuit identified above as corresponding to Appellant’s current mirror circuit. Although these circuits work together, their components are not shared, i.e., they stand apart (FF 3). Thus, Cherek teaches all the elements of claim 17. Accordingly, Cherek anticipates claims 17 and 18. With respect to claim 19, Appellant asserts that Cherek fails to disclose the resistors in the bandgap reference circuit (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3). The Examiner identified resistor R1 in Fig. 1A in Cherek as the “first resistor” (Ans. 5). However, resistor R1 is not connected to the negative input terminal of the operational amplifier as claim 19 requires. Because the first resistor required by claim 19 is not found in Cherek, Cherek does not anticipate claim 19. Appeal 2009-002270 Application 11/120,689 8 CONCLUSION Appellant did not establish that the Examiner erred in finding Yu teaches a current mirror circuit. Appellant did not establish that the Examiner erred in finding Cherek teaches a gain stage and a current mirror circuit wherein the current mirror circuit is separate from a bandgap reference circuit. Appellant did establish that the Examiner erred in finding Cherek teaches the resistors recited in claim 19. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART KIS BEVER HOFFMAN & HARMS, LLP 901 CAMPISI WAY SUITE 370 CAMPBELL, CA 95008