13232124 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017)

Ex Parte Sasson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2017

13232124 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/232,124 09/14/2011 Ori Sasson 146198US 7962 15055 7590 11/22/2017 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER MILLER, DANIEL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2866 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2017 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): qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ORI SASSON1 Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 24, and 34 as unpatentable over Gorisse et al. (A 60Hz 65nm CMOS RMS Power Detector for Antenna Impedance Mismatch Detection, Proceedings of ESSCIRC 2009; Athens; 172—175) in view of Microwavesl 01 (Resistive taps article from Microwavesl01.com, Branchline Couplers 2007, WaybackMachine Internet Archive website capture from 30 Dec. 2009, 1 QUALCOMM Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 http://microwavesl01.com/encyclopedia/Resistive_tap.cfm), and Schaffher (US 8,390,403 Bl; issued Mar. 5, 2013) and of remaining dependent claims 2—5, 7—9, 11, 12, and 25—32 as unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6. We AFFIRM. Appellant claims an apparatus for detecting power comprising a high impedance probe for voltage sensing of signals and a power root mean square (RMS) detector for measuring an RMS voltage value of the sensed signals “wherein a dimension of the probe is configured for impedance matching with one or more elements of the RMS detector” (independent claim 1; see also independent claim 34). In addition, Appellant claims a corresponding method for power detection (remaining independent claim 24). A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. An apparatus for detecting power, comprising: a high impedance probe for voltage sensing of signals, the probe comprising a metal line connected to a power root mean square (RMS) detector, wherein the metal line is connected to a transmission line, and wherein a dimension of the probe is configured for impedance matching with one or more elements of the RMS detector; and the RMS detector for measuring a RMS voltage value of the sensed signals. 2 Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claim rejections (App. Br. 7—11). Asa consequence, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims of which claim 1 is representative. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the combination of Gorisse and Microwaves 101 does not disclose the claimed feature wherein a dimension of the probe is configured for impedance matching with one or more elements of the RMS detector but concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Gorisse with this feature in view of Schaffner (Final Action 4—5 citing Schaffner col. 8,11. 20—22 (“The dimensions of each RF probe 26 are adjusted for the optimum impedance match looking in from the ridged waveguide 16”)). Appellant argues that, “while Schaffner teaches adjusting dimensions of a probe for impedance matching, Schaffner fails to teach that [the] dimensions of a probe are configured for impedance matching with one or more elements of a power root mean square (RMS) detector'" (App. Br. 8). In this regard, Appellant emphasizes that Schaffner’s detector diode chip 17 does not correspond to the claimed power RMS detector and argues that impedance matching for the detector diode chip 17 is performed via inductors and capacitors not by configuring dimensions of a probe {id. citing Schaffner col. 6,11. 59-62 (“The detector chip 17 may have monolithic delay line inductors and silicon nitride capacitors (shown in dashed lines on FIG. 3 Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 6) for impedance matching of the detector diode in chip 17 to the transmission line 32 . . In responding to this argument, the Examiner explains that Gorisse rather than Schaffner is relied upon for teaching a power RMS detector and that the combined teachings of the applied references would have suggested applying the probe-dimensioning technique taught by Schaffner in order to achieve impedance matching of Gorisse’s probe and RMS detector (Ans. 5— 6). As support for this position, the Examiner refers to KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [PTO personnel] can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”) (id.). Appellant replies by contending that “the only mention of impedance matching with a detector in Schaffner is performed via inductor[s] and capacitors ... [as exemplified by Schaffner’s teaching] ‘ [t]he detector chip 17 may have monolithic delay line inductors and silicon nitride capacitors (shown in dashed lines on FIG. 6) for impedance matching of the detector diode in chip 17 to the transmission line 32...’ Col. 6, lines 59-62” (Reply Br. 3). According to Appellant, “[therefore, . . . Gorisse ‘009 and Schaffner, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to teach ‘a dimension of the probe is configured for impedance matching with one or more elements of the RMS detector’ as recited in claim 1” (id.). Appellant’s position is not well taken for a number of reasons. 4 Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 First, Appellant does not explain why Schaffher’s column 6 disclosure of using inductors and capacitors for impedance matching of detector chip 17 to transmission line 32 militates against using Schaffher’s column 8 probe-dimensioning technique for impedance matching of Gorisse’s RMS detector and probe. In this regard, we emphasize that Schaffner’s transmission line 32 outputs signals away from the detector (see, e.g., Schaffher col. 5,11. 23—25) whereas the probes referred to in column 8, like the probes of Gorisse and claim 1, inputs signals into the detector (see, e.g., Schaffher col. 5,11. 5—8). Second, Appellant is incorrect in the above contention that “the only mention of impedance matching with a detector in Schaffner is performed via inductor and capacitors” (Reply Br. 3). In the same paragraph containing the column 6 disclosure cited by Appellant, Schaffner expressly teaches “[f]or a particular diode chip 17, the dimensions of the transition are preferably determined simultaneously with the dimensions of the MMIC tuning elements on the chip 17 in order to create an impedance match from the horn antenna input to the diode in the detector chip 17” (sentence bridging cols. 6—7). For the reasons expressed above and given by the Examiner, Appellant fails to show reversible error in the § 103 rejections of the appealed claims. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 5 Appeal 2017-002686 Application 13/232,124 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6