Ex Parte Marshall et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 20, 2013

11536884 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW MARSHALL and ROBERT L. PITTS
____________

Appeal 2010-001076
Application 11/536,884
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-001076
Application 11/536,884

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to an electronic circuitry and, in
particular, to circuitry for reliability testing as a function of slew. (Spec. 1).

Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A reliability test chain comprising:

a stress chain; and

transition time control circuits coupled to tap points
along the stress chain such that transition times of a signal on
the stress chain are controlled,

wherein the transition time control circuits comprise;

a transmission gate coupled to the stress chain;

a capacitor coupled to the transmission gate; and

a discharging transistor coupled in parallel with the
capacitor.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Iwamoto (US 5,946,268) in view of
Shin (US Pat. Pub. App. No. 2007/0069784 A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Iwamoto and Shin in view of Okuno (US Pat.
Pub. App. No. 2004/0070434 A1).

Appeal 2010-001076
Application 11/536,884

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants' sole argument for claims 1 and 8 is that:

Claims 1 and 8 include "... a discharging transistor
coupled in parallel with the capacitor". The references of record
do not show, teach, or suggest the above recited limitations of
claims 1 and 8. In U.S. Patent No. 5,946,268, Transistors 34
and 35, in Figure 10, are selectively rendered to alter the current
to capacitor 36. If transistor 34 in U.S. Patent No. 5,946,268 is
replaced by the transistor in Figure 3 of U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2007/0069784 that is connected in parallel with
capacitor 4C, the current to capacitor 36, in U.S. Patent No.
5,946,268, would not be selectively rendered as required in
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,268. If transistor 34 of U.S. Patent No.
5,946,268 is replaced by a transistor coupled in parallel with
capacitor 36, the device disclosed in Figure 10 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,946,268 will not function as intended. Therefore, it is not
obvious to insert the control circuit from U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2007/0069784 into the device of
U.S. Patent No. 5,946,268 to obtain the invention of claims 1
and 8.

(App. Br. 5). Appellants' do not explain why and how the combined
teachings would not function as intended. Moreover, attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). "Argument in the brief does not take the place of evidence in the
record." In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965) (citing In re Cole,
326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)).
The Examiner responds to Appellants' argument maintaining that the
combination:
Appeal 2010-001076
Application 11/536,884

4
would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made since the implementation of the control
circuit taught by Shin '784 with the delay line taught by
Iwamoto '268 would be routine to one skilled in the art with no
change in their respective functions because both control
circuits alter the current flowing to a capacitor by turning the
transistors on and off with control signals (Iwamoto '268
Column 11: lines 66-67 and Column 12: lines 1-4 and Shin '784
Paragraph 0015), in order to control slew rate that is insensitive
to process, voltage, and temperature (PVT) variations which
will provide a more stable signal as PVT variations have a
negative effect on signal integrity (Shin '784 Paragraphs 0012
and 0018).

(Ans. 8-9). We agree with the Examiner's reasoned conclusion. Appellants
elected to not file a Reply Brief to further address the Examiner's response to
Appellants' sole argument. Therefore, Appellants' have not shown error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of representative independent
claim 1. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of representative independent
claim 1 along with independent claim 8 and dependent claims 3-6 and 8-11
grouped therewith.
Appellants repeat the same general argument for dependent claims 7
and 12 which,for the above reasons, we find unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, and 3-12 as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2010-001076
Application 11/536,884

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, and 3-12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Pgc/peb