Ex Parte Thomas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13099285 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

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.
13/099,285 05/02/2011 C. Douglass Thomas CDTP001H 1463
34071 7590 10/03/2016
IPVENTURE, INC.
5150 EL CAMINO REAL
SUITE A-22
LOS ALTOS, CA 94022
EXAMINER
DU, THUAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2118
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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 C. DOUGLASS THOMAS and ALAN E. THOMAS
____________

Appeal 2014-006984
Application 13/099,285
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellants request rehearing of the June 1, 2016, Decision on Appeal
(“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the rejections of claims 4–8 and 11–19 as
being unpatentable over Pippin, Ikedea, and Swamy and of claims 9 and 10
as being unpatentable over Pippin, Ikedea, Swamy, and Gunn. We have
reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants’ arguments, but, for the
reasons given below, we are not persuaded any points were misapprehended
or overlooked by the Board in our Decision therein.
A. “temperature measurement” of Claim 4
Pippin
Appellants argue the only temperature measurement in Pippin is
provided by Programmable Vbe 110, as shown in Pippin’s Figure 1, which is
Appeal 2014-006984
Application 13/099,285

2
a part of Programmable Thermal Sensor 100 (Req. Reh’g 2). Appellants
further contend the interrupt signal of Pippin, which is a control signal
derived from a temperature measurement and is provided to external
circuitry, is not a temperature measurement, as required by claim 4 (Req.
Reh’g 3). Appellants assert the Board failed to consider the language of
claim 4 with respect to the temperature measurement as well as the teachings
of Pippin in its Decision (Req. Reh’g 3–4).
The Examiner made the following findings:
Pippin teaches that the temperature sensor (thermal sensor 100)
monitors the temperature of the microprocessor and outputs a
signal (labeled as “interrupt”) to indicate that the
microprocessor attains to a certain temperature, e.g. 100°F
(threshold temperature) [col. 4, lines 51-57; col. 10, lines 12-
24; col. 11, lines 1-5, 10-12].
. . .
The programmable Vbe contains a sensing portion and a
multiplier portion [col. 4, lines 63-64], wherein the temperature
of the microprocessor is measured by the sensing portion [col.
5, lines 22-24]. In general, temperature of the microprocessor
is measured (via the sensing portion) to generate the Vbe and
then compares with the reference voltage (via sense amplifier)
to generate the interrupt signal.
(Ans. 19) (emphases added). The Examiner explained that Pippin teaches
the recited step of “receiving, at the circuitry external to the microprocessor,
a temperature measurement of the microprocessor from the internal
temperature sensor” because “the signal (interrupt) outputted from the
temperature sensor is to indicate the temperature of the microprocessor (e.g.
microprocessor attains 100°F)” (id.).
The Board agreed with and adopted those findings (Decision 5). As
explained by the Examiner, the interrupt signal provides a measurement of
Appeal 2014-006984
Application 13/099,285

3
the microprocessor temperature by indicating whether that temperature is
above, or below, a threshold level. Although the signal itself may not be in
the form of a value in degrees, the outputted signal is an indication or
measurement of whether the microprocessor is getting hot or is still
operating in a safe temperature range, i.e., a temperature measurement (see
also Appellants’ Spec. ¶ 36). Therefore, we are unpersuaded that our
Decision was based on erroneous determination of whether Pippin teaches
the disputed limitation.
Ikedea
Appellants argue the Board’s reasoning with respect to the teachings
of Ikedea is defective because Ikedea’s temperature sensor is external to a
microprocessor (Req. Reh’g 4). Appellants further contend Ikedea does not
disclose any internal temperature sensor that can provide a temperature of a
microprocessor to external circuitry (id.).
The Examiner found, and the Board agreed, that temperature sensor
10 of Ikedea is internal to computer system 1, which contains CPU 2, and
that temperature sensor 10 is configured to output the temperature of the
CPU to external circuitry, as recited in claim 4 (Ans. 20; Decision 5). In
fact, the Examiner relied on Ikedea as disclosing an actual measurement of
the CPU temperature to meet the recited step of “receiving, . . . a
temperature measurement of the microprocessor from the internal
temperature sensor,” which is considered as being internal to the computer
system without necessarily needing to be inside the CPU. See Decision 4.
Therefore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was based on erroneous
determination of whether Ikedea’s temperature sensor is internal to a
microprocessor, whereas the Board’s Decision agreed with the Examiner’s
Appeal 2014-006984
Application 13/099,285

4
finding regarding receiving at external circuitry a temperature measurement
of the microprocessor.
B. “temperature measurement” of Claim 6
Appellants argue the Board has erroneously relied on Pippin and
Ikedea as disclosing the recited “temperature measurement” in claim 6 and
provide arguments similar to those raised for claim 4, which are addressed
above (Req. Reh’g 5–7). For the same reasons discussed above for claim 4,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Board improperly
relied on an incorrect understanding of a temperature measurement, as urged
by Appellants.

DECISION
Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellants’ request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellants’
request to make any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

DENIED