Ex Parte Ruesch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 16, 2003

09620679 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 16, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed July 20, 2000.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RODNEY RUESCH
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,6791
____________
HEARD: NOVEMBER 6, 2003
____________
Before KRASS, DIXON and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 7-10, 15, 16 and 23-25. Claims 1-6 and 17-22
have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-
elected invention. The Examiner has objected to claims 11-14 and
has indicated their allowability if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to a driver for
high speed data communication, and more specifically, to a method
for matching the output impedance of a driver to the load of the
interconnect lines. By matching the load, the voltage levels and
the impedance remain substantially constant with variations in
the manufacturing process, the voltage levels and the operating
temperature. Representative independent claim 7 is reproduced
below:
7. A method of communicating data in an integrated
circuit using internal interconnects, the method comprising:
receiving a data signal;
adjusting a first resistance coupled to a first supply
voltage, based on a manufacturing process, the first supply
voltage and a temperature;
adjusting a second resistance coupled to a second
supply voltage, based on the manufacturing process, the
first supply voltage and the temperature; and
adjusting a third resistance coupled to the second
supply voltage, based on the manufacturing process, the
first supply voltage and the temperature.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Knee et al. (Knee) 5,337,254 Aug. 9, 1994
Esch, Jr. (Esch) 6,118,310 Sep. 12, 2000
(filed Nov. 4, 1998)
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
3
Claims 7 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Knee.
Claims 8-10, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Esch.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
November 26, 2002) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 18, filed September 25, 2002) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 21, filed February 3, 2003) for Appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of claims 7 and 23-25,
Appellant’s main point of argument is that Knee does not disclose
a second supply voltage and “ground” cannot be properly
interpreted as a supply voltage (brief, page 6). During the oral
hearing, Appellant pointed to Figure 2A of the application and
argued that the second supply voltage corresponds to VTT 70 and,
therefore, is clearly distinct from ground levels 64.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that zero volt at the ground is still a particular potential or a
supply voltage that is higher than a negative voltage (answer,
page 7). The Examiner apparently relies on the prior art and
Appellant’s disclosure depicting a logic circuit connected
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
4
between power lines Vss (usually at 0 volt) and VTT (usually
higher than VSS) (id.) to conclude that the first potential must
be VTT whereas the second potential is VSS or the Ground (answer,
page 8).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. Accordingly, as required by our
reviewing court, we will initially direct our attention to
Appellants’ claim 7 in order to determine its scope. “[T]he name
of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). While, the
limitation of “a second supply voltage” should be given its
ordinary meaning, In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985), it should also be interpreted as broadly as
possible. Our reviewing court further reasons that the terms
used in the claims bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what
they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed
to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art. Texas
Digital Systems Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64
USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). Additionally, a court will give a claim term the
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
5
full range of its ordinary meaning as understood by persons
skilled in the relevant art, unless compelled otherwise. Texas
Digital Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d at 1202, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. See
also Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60
USPQ2d 1851, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Appellant’s claim 7 requires a first resistance coupled to
“a first supply voltage” while a second resistance and a third
resistance are both coupled, not to a ground, but to “a second
supply voltage.” We are in agreement with Appellant’s
characterization of the term “a second supply voltage” as a
voltage level, such as the VTT in Figure 2A (oral hearing), which
is different from the ground level which is actually a reference
point by which the two different supply voltages are measured
(brief, page 6).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
6
After a review of Knee, we agree with Appellant’s assertion
that the reference provides a plurality of inverter output stages
108, 110, 112 and 114 between a VDD bus 116 and a ground bus 118
(Figure 3 and col. 5, lines 21-30) whereas claim 7 clearly
requires each of the second resistance and the third resistance
be coupled to a second supply voltage, distinct from the first
supply voltage or the ground. In that regard, Knee merely
provides for one supply voltage, VDD bus 116, which can
correspond only to the first supply voltage. Accordingly, Knee
does not anticipate claims 7 and 23-25, and the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of these claims over Knee cannot be sustained.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 8-10, 15 and 16,
Appellant points out that Esch does not describe the selection of
resistance for resistors 262 and 264, as shown in Figure 6
(brief, page 7). Appellant further argues that the reference
merely teaches adjusting the output impedance and lacks the
specific claimed step of selecting an edge rate of a driver
coupled to the divider network based on the manufacturing
process, supply voltage and the temperature (brief, page 8).
In response, the Examiner characterizes the selection based
on 262 and 264 in Figure 6 of Esch as the claimed selection of a
resistance of a divider network (answer, page 8). Additionally,
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
7
the Examiner considers the feature of “maintaining a
substantially constant edge rate” to be inherent in Esch since
“the output signal at pad 241 in Figure 4 is maintained at a
constant edge by turning transistors 211-229" (answer, page 9).
After a review of Esch, we find that the Examiner’s
characterization of up/down counter 266 as “selection of an edge
rate” is without evidentiary support since the counter actually
adjusts the impedance of the PFET array to match to the external
resistor by counting up or down to turn resistors of the array on
or off (col. 9, lines 6-17). As pointed out by Appellant (oral
hearing & brief, page 8), although the impedance matching of Esch
may affect the edge rate, there is no teaching in Esch that, even
implicitly, relates to the selection of an edge rate based on the
recited variables. Therefore, the claimed steps of “selecting a
resistance of a voltage divider network” and “selecting an edge
rate of a driver coupled to the divider network,” as recited in
claim 8, would not have been prima facie anticipated by the
voltage divider and the up/down counter arrangement in Esch.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claims 8-11, 15 and 16.
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
8
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 7-10, 15, 16 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2003-1262
Application No. 09/620,679
9
SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG, WOESSNER & KLUTH, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402