Ex Parte Strzalkowski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

11776390 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
11/776,390 07/11/2007 Bernhard Strzalkowski 426555US71CONT 6690
57579 7590 03/02/2018
MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
CORRIELUS, JEAN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNHARD STRZALKOWSKI
Appeal 2016-0051761
Application 11/776,3902
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 39, 42, 58-65, 67-78, 80-96, 98, 99,
and 101. (Appeal Br. 1.) Claims 1-38, 40, 41, 43-57, 66, 79, 97, and 100
are cancelled. {Id. at 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29.) An oral hearing was held on
1 Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
September 9, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 22, 2016), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Feb. 22, 2016) and Final Office
Action (“Final Action,” mailed March 25, 2015).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Infineon Technologies
AG. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
November 28, 2017. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to signal data transfer with a high degree
of immunity to interference. Spec. 2:18-3:2, Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 60, 71, and 73, reproduced below together with claims 68 and
70 from which claim 71 depends, and with certain disputed limitations
italicized for emphasis, are exemplary:
60. A logic signal isolator comprising:
a micro-transformer having a primary winding and a
secondary winding;
a transmitter circuit which drives said primary winding in
response to a received logic signal, such that in response to a
first type of edge in the logic signal, a signal of a first
predetermined type is supplied to the primary winding and in
response to a second type of edge in the logic signal, a signal of
a second predetermined type is supplied to said primary
winding, the primary winding and the transmitter being
referenced to a first ground; and
the secondary winding being referenced to a second
ground which is galvanically isolated from the first ground and
said secondary winding supplying to a receiver circuit signals
received in correspondence to the signals provided to the
primary winding, the receiver reconstructing the received logic
signal from the received signals.
68. A method of providing an isolated logic signal output in
response to a logic signal input, comprising:
2
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
a. providing a micro-transformer having a primary
winding referenced to a first ground and a secondary winding
referenced to a second ground isolated from the first ground;
b. providing to the primary winding signals of a first type
in response to transitions of a first type in the input logic signal;
c. providing to the primary winding signals of a second
type different from the signals of the first type in response to
transitions of a second type in the input logic signal; and
d. receiving from the secondary winding signals
corresponding to the signals of the first and second types and
reconstituting the input logic signal from them.
70. The method of claim 68 wherein the signals of a first
type or the signals of a second type comprise a burst.
71. The method of claim 70 wherein both signals of a first
type and the signals of a second type comprise bursts
distinguishable from each other by frequency, duration or other
characteristic.
73. An apparatus for isolated digital signal transfer,
comprising:
a planar transformer having a primary coil and a
secondary coil;
a transmitter configured to excite the primary coil in
response to an input digital signal, such that an announcement
signal and a data signal are transferred by the transmitter to the
primary coil corresponding to a digital data value of at least a
first type or a second type in the input digital signal; and
a receiver configured to receive from the secondary coil
received signals corresponding to the data signal and the
announcement signal and to decode an output digital signal
from the received signals,
wherein the potentials of the transmitter and the receiver
are electrically isolated.
3
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
Examiner’s Rejections & References
(1) Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Final Action 2-
3.)
(2) Claims 60-65, 67-78, and 80-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Chen et al. (US 7,075,329 B2; iss. July 11, 2006).
(Final Action 4-7.)
(3) Claims 39, 42, 58, 59, 91-96, 98, 99, and 101 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Strzalkowski3 (US 2004/0101036 Al;
pub. May 27, 2004). (Final Action 7.)4
(4) Claims 60-65, 67-72, and 91-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Regan (US 3,537,022; iss. Oct. 27, 1970) and
Gavrilova et al. (Derwent Accession No. 1994-033533, English-language
abstract of USSR Patent Publication SU 1786521 Al, pub. January 7, 1993).
(Final Action 7-10.)
3 The Examiner erroneously terms this reference “Chen” in the rejection
(Final Action 7) which, from the context and related filings referenced, we
understand to be an inadvertent error. As Appellant argues this rejection on
the basis of the date of the reference, giving the date of the Strzalkowski
reference (Appeal Br. 12-13), we assume the correct reference was
understood to be the Strzalkowski reference.
4 While Claims 39 and 42 were not originally in the header for this rejection,
their inclusion in the body of the rejection convinces us that this was an
inadvertent error. Neither Appellant nor Examiner mentions these claims
specifically in their briefs, though Appellant indicates their rejection is being
appealed. Appeal Br. 2.
4
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
(5) Claims 73-78 and 80-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Regan and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(Specification 2:5-15). (Final Action 10-13.)
Issues
Appellant raises the following issues:
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification and the
priority document fail to provide adequate written description for claim 71?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding claims 60-65, 67-78, and 80-
90 anticipated by Chen and claims 39, 42, 58, 59, 91-96, 98, 99, and 101
anticipated by Strzalkowski?
(C) Did the Examiner err in finding that Gavrilova teaches or
suggests a micro-transformer as recited in the claims?
(D) Did the Examiner err in finding that Regan teaches or suggests
an input digital signal and an output digital signal as recited in claim 73?
ANALYSIS
(A) Priority Issues
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification and the claimed
priority document (foreign application) fail to provide an adequate written
description for claim 71. Final Action 2-3, 14-15. Claim 71 includes the
limitation that “signals of a first type and the signals of a second type
comprise bursts distinguishable from each other by frequency, duration or
other characteristic.” Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis as in Final Act. 2.) As
Appellant notes, “signals of a first type” and “signals of a second type” are
provided in response to transitions of a first type and a second type,
5
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
respectively, in an input logic signal. Id. at 5 (citing Spec. 6:15-18, 11:8-
12:10, Figs. 1 (element 10), 4).
The Specification discloses that “information about the current signal
level of the control signal Sin” is transferred within data signal time window
lasting for time period tf, which window begins after time period td has
passed since an announcement pulse. Spec. 11:8-18. During the “data
signal time window” information is transferred regarding the current signal
level of Sin. In an exemplary embodiment, “a pulse is transferred within the
time window tf when the input signal Sin assumes an upper signal level, and
no pulse is transferred within the data signal time window when the input
signal Sin assumes a lower signal level.” Id. 11:16-18. In another
exemplary embodiment:
[t]he signal level of the input signal Sin is converted into the
pulses transferred during the data signal time window by virtue
of transferring two pulses at successive times in the data signal
time window for a first level, for example, an upper level, of the
input signal Sin, while no pulses are generated and transferred
during the time window for a second level, for example, a lower
level, of the input signal Sin.
Id. at 9:7-15.
Appellant argues that claim 71 is supported by the Specification and
that the priority claim is supported by the disclosure of the claimed priority
document. Appeal Br. 9-12. These two arguments are duplicative and we
address them together herein. Appellant argues that the Specification
discloses that “[t]he data pulse train transferred during the data signal time
window can contain the information that is to be transferred in virtually any
manner.” Id. at 9 (quoting Spec. 8:5-6). Appellant contends that one of
6
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
ordinary skill would know from “any manner” that “a characteristic other
than frequency or duration” might distinguish bursts. Id.
The Examiner finds that the Specification teaches only ‘“data coding’
is what produces signals distinguishable by frequency or duration . . .
[hjowever, the coding is not disclosed to produce signals distinguishable
with any other‘characteristic.’” Final Act. 14-15. We agree. While we are
mindful that “the written description requirement does not demand . . .
examples” we also know that “the specification itself. . . must demonstrate
possession.” AriadPharm., Inc. v. EliLilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352.
The Examiner’s finding is that data coding in the Specification is disclosed
as producing signals varied only by frequency or duration. We are not
convinced by Appellant’s arguments that the claimed “bursts” comprising
the signals of the first and second type in claim 71 are described in the
Specification as being distinguished by characteristics other than frequency
or duration, or that other distinguishing “burst” signal characteristics are
disclosed by the ambiguous statement that a “data pulse train” signal could
contain information in “virtually any manner.” (Spec. 8:5-6).
Appellant argues that because the announcement pulses and data
pulses are transferred at different times, the “other characteristic” is
“windowing tf and timing td” which distinguish the announcement pulses
from the data pulses. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4-5. “Therefore, a signal
can be determined to be either an announcement signal S1 or a data signal
S2 based on whether it is received within the time window tf or not.” Reply
Br. 5. However, this argued distinction allows discrimination between an
announcement signal and a data signal, and not between a first and a second
7
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
type of data signal, as the Examiner finds. Answer 12-13. Thus, we are not
convinced by this argument of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant cites a prior Board decision regarding this application
which found “Appellant has perfected his claim for foreign priority.”
Appeal Br. 12 (citing Decision on Appeal, April 25, 2013). However, we
note that claim 71 was added by amendment after that decision, and thus the
present matter was not before the Board. See Request for Continued
Examination of 12/13/2013.
We therefore are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement. Additionally, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the application is not entitled to the priority date
claimed.
(B) Anticipation Rejections
With respect to the anticipation rejections of claims 60-65, 67-78,
and 80-90 as anticipated by Chen and claims 39, 42, 58, 59, 91-96, 98, 99,
and 101 as anticipated by Strzalkowski, these claims are argued solely on the
basis of validity of the priority claim, which we addressed above. Appeal
Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 5-6.
As we have found no error in the Examiner’s conclusion regarding the
priority date to be accorded to the application, we additionally are not
persuaded of error with respect to the anticipation rejections argued on this
basis.
8
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
(C) Gavrilova
The Examiner finds that Gavrilova, in combination with Regan,
teaches or suggests a micro-transformer as in claims 60-65, 67-72, and 91-
96. Final Action 7-10.
Appellant argues that Gavrilova teaches a pulse transformer, different
from the micro-transformer recited in claim 60. Appeal Br. 14-15.
Gavrilova, as applied by the Examiner, is a Derwent abstract of a Soviet
patent publication. Gavrilova 1. Appellant provided, with its September 26,
2014 Response, a translation of Gavrilova, and notes that “Gavrilova merely
describes a miniature version of a conventional transformer” and “states that
the pulse transformer described therein operates in the same manner as a
common traditional transformer.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis and internal
quotations omitted).
We agree with Appellant that the Gavrilova reference describes a
miniature version of a conventional transformer, and not a micro­
transformer as claimed. Appeal Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 6-8. Therefore, we do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 60, or claims 61-65, 67-72,
and 91-96 (argued together with claim 60) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Reagan and Gavrilova.
(D) Regan’s Teachings Regarding Its Input Digital Signals
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Regan, in combination
with the Admitted Prior Art, teaches an input digital signal and an output
digital signal, as in claim 73. Appeal Br. 15-17, Reply Br. 8-10.
Regan discloses a signal translating circuit which produces from an
input signal (“Esignal”) an output signal (“(E)”) which is an amplified
replica of the input signal. Regan 2:47^19, Fig. 3. The Examiner finds that
9
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
Regan’s Esignal teaches the “input digital signal” of claim 73. Final Action
10-11, 15-16.
Appellant argues that Regan’s input signal (“Esignal”) is not a digital
signal, as it is disclosed as having a “wide dynamic range” and a variable
frequency. Appeal Br. 16 (citing Regan 1:20-23). The Examiner disagrees,
citing additional prior art to show that digital signals may have a wide
dynamic range. However, while a digital signal may represent a signal with
a wide dynamic range, for example as in the Mizuno patent cited by the
Examiner (Answer 14 (citing Mizuno, US 6,243,033 Bl; iss. July 17,
1998)(describing in the Abstract “a discretely changing wide dynamic range
signal, represented by the digital signal value representing method
employing M signal lines”) a single signal described as having a “wide
dynamic range” does not clearly teach or suggest a digital input signal.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown how Regan
teaches or suggests the digital input signal recited in claim 73, and
additionally in claims 74-89, and 80-90, argued on the same basis.
Conclusions
We affirm the Examiner’s decision with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph rejection of claim 71 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 60-65, 67-78, and 80-90 as anticipated by
Chen.
10
Appeal 2016-005176
Application 11/776,390
We affirm the Examiner’s decision with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 39, 42, 58, 59, 91-96, 98, 99, and 101 as
anticipated by Strzalkowski.
We reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 60-65, 67-72,
and 91-96 as unpatentable over Regan and Gavrilova; and claims 73-78 and
80-90 as unpatentable over Regan and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision. See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(a)(1).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 39, 42, 58-65,
67-78, 80-90, 91-96, 98, 99, and 101.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
11