13278052 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

Ex Parte Terrovitis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 2016

13278052 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/278,052 10/20/2011 87564 7590 05/18/2016 Bay Area Technology Law Group PC 2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite L San Rafael, CA 94901 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Emmanouil Terrovitis 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 534.120237 7685 EXAMINER GANNON, LEVI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 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): patents@batechlaw.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 EMMANOUIL TERROVITIS Appeal2014-009381 Application 13/278,052 Technology Center 2800 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--21, which are all the pending claims in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. (App. Br. 1). 2 Claim 3 has been canceled. Appeal2014-009381 Application 13/278,052 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's invention relates to integrated inductor-capacitor tank voltage controlled oscillators (VCOs) having low phase noise (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. An oscillatory array comprising a first pair of integrated VCOs wherein each VCO includes resonant circuit elements electrically coupled to an inductor formed from a single tum coil positioned on a substantially planar substrate and wherein the VCOs are connected in parallel and at least one segment of the single tum coil inductor of each VCO is shared. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1, 2, and 4--21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gabara (US 7 ,508,280 B2; Mar. 24, 2009) and El Rai (US 2008/0284534 Al; Nov. 20, 2008) (see Final Act. 2-5.) ANALYSIS Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the Examiner finds Gabara discloses all the recited elements except for "wherein ... each VCO is shared with at least one segment of the single tum coil of at least two or four neighboring VCOs," for which the Examiner relies on El Rai (Final Act. 2- 3). The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to share an inductor segment between a pair of Gabara's VCOs, as taught by El Rai's inductor segment that is shared between two circuit elements, with the proffered rationale of conserving space on the semiconductor substrate (Final Act. 3, citing El Rai i-f 87). 2 Appeal2014-009381 Application 13/278,052 Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's findings regarding Gabara, but contends El Rai does not teach the claimed pair of voltage controlled oscillators (VCOs) that include resonant circuit elements electrically connected to an inductor, and wherein the VCOs have a shared inductor segment, because El Rai' s shared inductor segment is electrically connected to amplifier circuits and not the oscillation generating (i.e., resonant) circuits (App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant further contends the combination of Gabara and El Rai does not teach the claimed VCOs that share a segment of a resonant inductor, because El Rai's magnetically coupled inductor does not perform the same function as Gabara' s electrically coupled inductor, therefore El Rai's inductor is a non-analogous structure that cannot be substituted into Gabara (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3--4). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred. Appellant's contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. First, Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking El Rai individually where the rejection is based on the combination of Gabara and El Rai. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Gabara teaches the claimed VCOs including resonant circuit elements (Ans. 3-5, citing Gabara Fig. 5a, depicting an LC tank circuit, see col. 10, 1. 64), and finds El Rai teaches the concept of an inductor having a segment shared between two circuits in order to optimize the circuit area requirement (Ans. 4, citing El Rai i-f 87). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the combination of Gabara and El Rai fails to teach the claimed VCOs having resonant circuit elements and a shared inductor segment. 3 Appeal2014-009381 Application 13/278,052 Second, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Gabara, El Rai, and the claimed subject matter are analogous art because they are all directed to the same field of endeavor, specifically voltage controlled oscillators that comprise resonating circuits coupled to inductors (see Gabara col. 11, 11. 6-14; El Rai i-fi-15-6). See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ). Further, the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference ... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). When combining references, "a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner's proffered combination of Gabara and El Rai does not require El Rai' s magnetically coupled inductor to be bodily incorporated into Gabara's VCO. Rather, the combined teachings suggest one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the desire to reduce the VCO circuit area and save space on Gabara's semiconductor substrate by sharing metal lines that form the inductor segments, as taught by El Rai (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3-5). CONCLUSION As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gabara and El Rai teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as remaining claims 2, 4--13, and 15-21 which are not argued 4 Appeal2014-009381 Application 13/278,052 separately. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--21. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5