Ex Parte Neidorff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2015

12784303 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT ALAN NEIDORFF
____________

Appeal 2013-003498
Application 12/784,303
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s
final rejections of claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Cook et al. (US 7,863,876 B2, issued Jan. 4,
2011) and of claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cook. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2013-003498
Application 12/784,303

2
Appellant claims a circuit for producing a quotient of two input
voltages (Vx and Vy) comprising a circuit including an operational amplifier
(20) for establishing a voltage ratio of one of the input voltages and a circuit
(12) for applying the voltage ratio to another of the input voltages, wherein a
ratio portion of the another of the input voltages is substantially equal to a
reference voltage times the quotient of the input voltages (independence
claim 1, Fig. 1; see also voltage divider independent claim 12 and method
independent claim 18).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A circuit for producing a quotient of two input voltages,
comprising:
a circuit including an operational amplifier for establishing a voltage
ratio of one of said input voltages, wherein said voltage ratio has a ratio
portion substantially equal to a reference voltage applied to an input of the
operational amplifier; and
a circuit for applying said voltage ratio to another of said input
voltages, wherein a ratio portion of said another of said input voltages at
another input of the operational amplifier is substantially equal to said
reference voltage times the quotient of said input voltages.

Appellant does not present any separate arguments specifically
directed to the dependent claims under rejection (see App. Br. 5–7).
Therefore, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent
independent claims of which claim 1 is representative.
We sustain the above rejections based on the Examiner’s findings of
fact and rebuttals to arguments expressed in the Final Action and in the
Answer. The following comments are added for emphasis.
Appeal 2013-003498
Application 12/784,303

3
Appellant argues that, because Cook obtains a correct voltage “by
subtracting the error term Verror, not by a division process[,] . . . the
Examiner’s statement t[h]at Cook et al shows a quotient of 2 signals is
technically incorrect” (App. Br. 6).

As explained by the Examiner, this argument lacks persuasive merit
because it relates to Cook’s subtraction process for obtaining output voltage
Vout=V’ref rather than the quotient V2/V1 derived by the Examiner’s analysis
of the annotated Cook Figures 3 and 4 shown on page 6 of the Answer (Ans.
10).

Appellant also argues that, “[i]n the analysis, the examiner ignores the
fact that there is a change in the mode of operation of Cook’s circuit from
figures 3 [sic] to figure 4” (App. Br. 7).

The deficiency of this argument is that it fails to specifically identify
any analysis error resulting from the Figure 3 circuit being in a measurement
mode and the Figure 4 circuit being in an operational mode.

For the reasons given by the Examiner and emphasized above,
Appellant’s arguments do not show the Examiner’s finding of anticipation
concerning representative claim 1 to be erroneous.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2013-003498
Application 12/784,303

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc