Ex Parte Tanzawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11972483 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/972,483 01/10/2008 Toru Tanzawa MICS:0249 / 06-0148 6759
52142 7590 03/03/2014
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
LE, DINH THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TORU TANZAWA

__________

Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appellant’s invention is said to be directed to devices and methods for
“reducing leakage currents and discharging power in a voltage generator
circuit of a memory device” (Spec. ¶ 0001).

Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

2
Claims 1 and 23 are illustrative:
1. A device for generating voltage, comprising:
a charge pump circuit comprising a first transistor;
a high-voltage switch circuit coupled to a cut-off switch
circuit; and
the cut-off switch circuit arranged to be enabled or
disabled based on an operation of the charge pump circuit to
reduce leakage current from the charge pump circuit, the cut-off
switch comprising a second transistor, wherein an output of the
charge pump circuit is coupled to one of a source node and a
drain node of the second transistor, and a first control signal is
input at a gate of the second transistor.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x).
23. A circuit for generating voltage, comprising:
a charge pump circuit comprising a first transistor;
a high-voltage switch circuit coupled to a discharge
circuit; and
the discharge circuit comprising a second transistor,
wherein an output of the charge pump circuit is coupled to a
first node of the second transistor, a second node of the second
transistor is coupled to a lower potential node, and a first
control signal is input at a control gate of the second transistor.
Id. at 20.
Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 1-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph;1 claims 1-9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art
(Applicant’s Figures 1-3) (hereinafter “AAPA”) in view of Yamagishi (US

1 The Appellant also appeals the § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 24-26. The Examiner does not repeat the § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 24-26 in the Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 4. Therefore,
we consider this rejection withdrawn.
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

3
6,759,912 B2, issued Jul. 6, 2004); and claims 1-16 and 18-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Furuta (US
7,276,956 B2, issued Oct. 2, 2007).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections, Appellant argues the
subject matter common to independent claims 1 and 18 (App. Br. 10-14) and
the subject matter common to claims 23, 24, and 27 (App. Br. 14-15). We
select claims 1 and 23 as representative. Accordingly, the rejections of
claims 2-16 and 18-22 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 24-27 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection
of claim 23. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (vii).

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that “the cut-off
switch circuit arranged to be enabled or disabled based on an operation of
the charge pump circuit” recited in claim 1 is indefinite? We decide this
issue in the affirmative.
2. Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the
combination of AAPA’s charge pump circuit and high-voltage switch circuit
with Yamagishi’s switch would have rendered obvious the “cut-off switch
circuit arranged to be enabled or disabled based on an operation of the
charge pump circuit” as recited in claim 1? We decide this issue in the
negative.
3. Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the
combination of AAPA’s charge pump circuit and high-voltage switch circuit
with Furuta’s switches would have rendered obvious the “cut-off switch
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

4
circuit” recited in claim 1 and the “discharge circuit” recited in claim 23?
We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Issue 1
According to the Examiner, “It is unclear how the cut-off switch can
recognize the operation of the charge pump circuit so that the switch can be
‘enabled or disabled based on an operation of the charge pump circuit’ since
the operation of the switch does not have any structural relationship with the
operation of the charge pump circuit.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues claim 1 recites that the second transistor in the cut-
off switch has a structural relationship with the charge pump circuit. In
particular, Appellant argues:
As . . . recited in claim 1, the cut-off switch circuit comprises a
second transistor, and a first control signal is input at a gate of
the second transistor. As is well understood in the arts, this first
control signal input at the gate of the second transistor functions
to switch the second transistor. By switching the second
transistor, the charge pump circuit may be enabled or disabled.
App. Br. 7.
The preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s position that
claim 1 is not indefinite. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶2, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed
when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v.
Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. See e.g., In re
Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA 1971). We agree with Appellant that a
physical connection between the charge pump output and the cut-off switch
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

5
is recited by the claim. Claim 1 recites “an output of the charge pump circuit
is coupled to” a node in the second transistor of the cut-off switch. The
claim further recites that the cut-off switch is “enabled or disabled based on
an operation of the charge pump circuit” and therefore recites a physical
relationship between the cut-off switch operation and the charge pump
circuit operation. As for the actual operation of the cut-off switch and the
charge pump, the form of the input from the operation of the charge pump
circuit to the cut-off switch is a matter of breadth of the claim rather than
indefiniteness. See Reply Br. 3.
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.2
Issue 2
The Examiner finds that the AAPA discloses a circuit comprising a
charge pump circuit (12), an inherent first transistor (22, 24), and a high-
voltage switch circuit (14) coupled to the charge pump circuit (12). Ans. 5
(citing AAPA Figures 1-3). The Examiner further finds that the AAPA fails
to disclose (1) a cut-off switch circuit comprising a second transistor as
required by claim 1 and (2) the steps of enabling and disabling the first
transistor as required by claim 18. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that
Yamagishi teaches “placing a transistor (24 in Figure 4 and 28 in Figure 7)
at the output of the charge pump (25-27) for reducing leakage current in
order to prevent the deterioration of the speed of the circuit” (Ans. 6 citing
Yamagishi, col. 3, ll. 30-45, col. 6, ll. 5-39). The “switch (24 or 28) . . .
operates (enabled or disabled) inherently based on the leakage current or the
operation of the [] charge pump circuit (25-27).” Id. The Examiner explains

2 Claim 17 was previously only rejected under 35 U.S.C.§112, second
paragraph; it stands objected to in the Final Rejection mailed September 28,
2010.
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

6
that “[s]ince the leakage current is produced by the charge pump of the
admitted prior art when it is not operated, the cut off switch of the modified
circuit of the admitted prior art in view of Yamagishi would be turned off
when the charge pump is not operating in order to isolate the charge pump
from the output circuit or to reduce the leakage flowing to the output circuit
in the standby mode, and it would be turned on when the charge pump is
operating in order to allow the signal flows to the output circuit in the
normal operation mode.” Id. at 6-7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Yamagishi does not teach that the transistor 24 is enabled or
disabled based on an operation of the charge pump circuit, or
that the transistor 24 is enabled when the charge pump is
operating, and disabled with the charge pump is not operating.
App. Br. 10. Appellant asserts that Yamagishi teaches in Figure 4 a phase
locked loop (PLL) including transistor/switch 24 inside charge pump 20 and
that “the charge pump 20 in the PLL 1 is turned on or off by the signal
applied to the gate of the third switch 24.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis in the
original); see also Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that “[t]here is nothing recited in claim[] 1 . . .
about the cut-off switch (28) is not allowed to be ‘contained’ in the charge
pump.” Ans. 14. The Examiner further responds that Yamagishi teaches a
charge pump in transistors 26 and 27 in Figure 7, and the recited cut-off
switch in switch 28 (switch 24 in Figure 4) in order to overcome the problem
of the prior art caused by leakage current. Ans. 13-14; see also id. at 6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for a number of reasons. First,
Appellant’s arguments are directed to the Yamagishi reference individually
rather than the combination of Yamagishi and AAPA. One cannot show
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

7
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Second, although Yamagishi collectively refers to elements 22-24 as
“charge pump 20a” in Figure 4 and elements 26-28 as “charge pump 20b” in
Figure 7, Appellant has not directed us to any evidence to show that the
terminology chosen by Yamagishi would preclude one in the art from
recognizing that transistors 22 and 23 constitute a charge pump circuit
whose output is coupled to switch 24 (in Figure 4). There is no evidence in
this record that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize
transistors 22 and 23 (or transistors 26 and 27 in Figure 7) as analogous to
the charge pump elements found in AAPA. Moreover, a comparison of
Appellant’s Figure 4 to Figures 1A and 1B of Yamagishi, which identify the
charge pump, further supports the Examiner’s finding that switches 22 and
23 constitute a charge pump circuit. Yamagishi teaches adding switch 24 (or
switch 28) to control the voltage based on whether transistors 22 and 23 (or
transistors 26 and 27) are operating. See Ans. 6.
Third, Appellant relies on limitations not found in the claims. Claim 1
does not recite enabling the switch when the charge pump is operating.
Claim 1 broadly recites that the switch enabling/disabling is “based on” the
charge pump operation. Cf. Reply Br. 4 (“Various techniques may be
possible for enabling or disabling the operation of the cut-off switch
circuit.”)
Fourth, the further application of Yamagishi’s whole circuit as a phase
locked loop is not pertinent to the teaching in Yamagishi of a cut-off switch
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

8
at the output of a charge pump circuit. The Examiner’s rejections rely on
AAPA’s charge pump, not the charge pump of Yamagishi. Appellant does
not dispute that AAPA discloses the charge pump. The preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that the combination of
Yamagishi’s cut-off switch 24 (or 28) and AAPA’s charge pump yields the
recited claim limitations.
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections over AAPA
in view of Yamagishi.
Issue 3
Claim 1
The Examiner again relies on AAPA teaching the charge pump circuit
(12) comprising an inherent first transistor (22, 24) and a high-voltage
switch circuit (14) being coupled to the charge pump circuit (12) as required
by claim 1. Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds that Furuta suggests
“placing a cut-off switch (113) having a second transistor (SW31) and a
discharge transistor (SW32) at the output of the voltage source (111) for [the
purpose of] reducing power consumption and increasing operation speed”
(id. citing Furuta Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 45-55). Because the transistors (SW31,
SW32) are used to cut the current generated from the operation of the
source, the Examiner determines that “these transistors operate[] (enabled or
disabled) inherently based on the operation of the charge pump.” Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Furuta teaches transfer circuit 113 including two switches SW31 and SW32
while “[e]ach of the cut-off switch circuit recited in claim 1 [and claim 18
which recites “the first transistor”] comprises one transistor which is enabled
or disabled based on the operation of the charge pump.” App. Br. 13
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

9
(emphasis in the original); see also Reply Br. 7. Appellant alleges that
Furuta teaches that separate gate signals are applied to switches SW31 and
SW32, but claim 1 “recites that a first control signal is input at a gate of the
second transistor to enable or disable the cut-off switch circuit.” Id. at 13.
The Examiner responds that “[c]laims 1 and 18 [which claims
Appellant argues together] do not recite anything about the cut-off switch
being ‘only one transistor.’” Ans. 15.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they rely on
limitations not found in the claims. Claim 1 recites “a first control signal is
input at a gate of the second transistor” in the cut-off switch, but does not
require that the enabling/disabling is activated by the recited first control
signal. The Examiner reasonably finds the gate signal applied to SW31 to
be the recited control signal input at a gate of the cut-off switch transistor in
claim 1. Ans. 15.
Appellant further argues that Furuta’s teachings differ from the
claimed invention because “Furuta involves operating two transfer gate
switches.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis in the original); see also Reply Br. 7.
However, this argument is not persuasive because Appellant’s invention as
shown in Figure 5 and claimed in claim 1 does not exclude two distinct
control signals.
Claim 23
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 23, the Examiner begins
by referring back to “the modified circuit of the admitted prior art in view of
Furuta.” Ans. 11. The Examiner combines AAPA with Furuta to show the
obviousness of claim 1 on page 8 of the Answer. The Examiner specifically
finds that AAPA “discloses a circuit in Figures 1-3 comprising:
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

10
- a charge pump circuit (12) comprising an inherent first transistor
(22, 24), see Figures 2-3; and
- a high-voltage switch circuit (14) being coupled to the charge pump
circuit (12).” Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds in Furuta:
- the discharge circuit (SW32) comprising a second
transistor (SW32), wherein an output of the charge pump circuit
is coupled to a first node of the second transistor, a second node
of the second transistor is coupled to a lower potential node
(ground), and a first control signal from the box (112) is input
at a control gate of the second transistor (SW32).
Ans. 11.
The Appellant does not dispute that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the discharge circuit (SW32) with the
AAPA circuit. Rather, the Appellant contends that “Furuta does not discuss
any discharging purposes of the switch SW32.” App. Br. 15. Appellant also
argues “that the Examiner has not shown that Furuta teaches or suggests a
high-voltage switch circuit of [sic] the cut-off switch circuit, as recited in
each of claims 23, 24, and 27.” Id.
The preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s
finding that Furuta’s SW32 is a discharge circuit as required by claim 23.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s assertion that “the switch SW32 is a
completely different element from the discharge circuit recited in claims 23,
24, and 27.” App. Br. 15. Claim 23 recites “an output of the charge pump
circuit is coupled to a first node of the second transistor [of the discharge
circuit], a second node of the second transistor is coupled to a lower
potential node.” The Examiner reasonably finds that a first node of SW32 is
coupled to an output of a charge pump circuit (voltage generator 111; see
Ans. 8) and a second node of SW32 “is coupled to a lower potential node
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

11
(ground).” Ans. 11. Furuta explicitly states “if the switch SW32 is on, the
source voltage line 4 is connected to GND.” Col. 6, ll. 57-58. Appellant has
not directed us to any evidence that this connection of the charge pump
output to ground via SW32 in Furuta is not a discharging circuit.
As with Yamagishi, the question is not whether Furuta teaches all of
the claimed limitations, but whether Furuta teaches a discharge circuit that
would have been obvious to combine with the AAPA charge pump. Again,
Appellant does not dispute that AAPA discloses the charge pump relied
upon in the Examiner’s rejections. Thus, Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner has not shown that Furuta teaches a high voltage switch circuit is
not persuasive because the Examiner relies on AAPA for these elements.
The record supports the finding that Furuta teaches an analogous charge
pump in voltage generator 111 and a discharge circuit SW32 at the output of
this charge pump. The preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s determination that the combination of Furuta’s cut-off switch
and discharge circuit and AAPA’s charge pump yields the recited claim
limitations of claims 1 and 23.
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections over AAPA
in view of Furuta.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 1-17 are
reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-16 and
18-27 are affirmed.
Appeal 2011-013111
Application 11/972,483

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

dm