Ex Parte Torres et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2018

14274848 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/274,848 05/12/2014
23494 7590 05/07/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Erick Omar Torres
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.
TI-73497 6848
EXAMINER
PEREZ, BRYAN REYNALDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERICK OMAR TORRES,
HARISH VENKATARAMAN, and PHILOMENA C. BRADY
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-20 of Application 14/274,848
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 20, 2016).
Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
1 Texas Instruments Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
BACKGROUND
The '848 Application describes a method in circuitry for sensing and
controlling a current. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is representative of the '848
Application's claims and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
1. Circuitry, comprising:
an inductor for conducting a first current, wherein the
first current is variable;
a first transistor, coupled through the inductor to an
output node, for alternately switching on and off in response to
a voltage signal, so that the first current is: enhanced while the
first transistor switched on in response to the voltage signal;
and limited when the first transistor is switched off in response
to the voltage signal;
a second transistor, coupled to the first transistor, for
conducting a second current, wherein: the second current is
variable; and on/off switching of the second transistor is
independent of the voltage signal; and
control circuitry for sensing the second current and
adjusting the voltage signal to alternately switch the first
transistor on and off in response to: the sensing of the second
current; and a voltage of the output node.
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Xing2 and Applicant
admitted prior art ("AAP A"). Final Act. 3.
2 US 2009/0033289 Al, published February 5, 2009.
2
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
2. Claims 2-5 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Xing, AAP A, and Kudo. 3
Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Xing, AAP A, and Kudo.
Final Act. 8.
DISCUSSION
Appellants argue for reversal of the Examiner's rejections on the basis
of limitations found in independent claims 1, 9, and 14. Appeal Br. 5-10.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 stand or fall with their parent
independent claim. Id. at 6, 8, 10. We, therefore, limit our discussion to the
independent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1 as unpatentable over the
combination of Xing and AAP A. Final Act. 3. In the Final Action, the
Examiner found that
Xing does not explicitly mention a circuit comprising:
a second transistor, coupled to the first transistor, for
conducting a second current, wherein: the second current is
variable; and on/off switching of the second transistor is
independent of the voltage signal; and control circuitry for
sensing the second current and adjusting the voltage signal to
alternately switch the first transistor on and off in response to:
the sensing of the second current; and a voltage of the output
node.
Id. (quoting claim 1 ). The Examiner also found that AAP A describes the
limitations of claim 1 not described or suggested in Xing. Id. at 3--4. Figure
3 US 2008/0224676 Al, published September 18, 2008.
3
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
1 of the '848 Application's Specification, which shows AAPA is reproduced
below:
102
NODES J
108
l
' NODEC__.1
FIG. 1
(PRlORART)
r
100
I/
CONTROL
CIRCUITRY
-110
1LOAD
i1SENSE
Figure 1 is a schematic electrical circuit diagram
of a conventional step down converter.
104
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred by finding that AAP A
describes or suggests that the on/off switching of the second transistor is
independent of the voltage signal. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellants
argue that paragraph 4 of the Specification
states, "MN8 mirrors a current that flows through MNA," which
in tum "senses a current that flows through MNsNs," which in
tum "senses a current that flows through MN1" (whose gate is
alternately switched on and off by the voltage signal V GD from
the control circuitry 104). Consequently, FIG. 1 teaches on/off
switching ofMNB, MNA and MNsNs is not independent of the
voltage signal V GD· In contrast, claim 1 requires on/off
4
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
switching of the second transistor (whose conducted current is
sensed by the control circuitry) being independent of the
voltage signal (in response to which the first transistor
alternately switches on and oft). Thus, FIG. 1 actually teaches
the opposite of claim 1 's required independence, so FIG. 1
likewise teaches away from the Examiner's proposed
combination with Xing.
Appeal Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner argues:
While it is true V GD is triggering the inverter shown in fig
1, item 102[,] to switch the transistor MN1, one of ordinary skill
in the art recognizes that an inverter, i.e. item 102, necessarily
comprises an internal transistor connected to a voltage source
and a control terminal connected to V GD, i.e. a control voltage.
Examiner ascertains that the voltage applied at the control
terminal of MN 1 comes from the voltage source of item 102
because V GD is not transferred to MN 1, instead V GD is applied to
the internal transistor in which the internal transistor then
triggers to send the voltage source to MNI. Thus, making
MN 1, independent of V GD and MN 1 is dependent [sic,
independent] from the source voltage of 102.
Answer 5.
Appellants reply that the Examiner's contention is inconsistent with
the Specification. Reply Br. 1 (citing Spec. i-f 2 ("The Gates of MN 1 and
MNsNs are connected to an output of a driver 102, which: (a) receives a
voltage signal V GD from control circuitry 104; and (B) drives V GD through
such output to those gates.")).
We determine that the Examiner erred by finding that the on/ off
switching of the second transistor in the proposed combination would be
independent of the voltage signal. We accept the Examiner's explanation of
how inverter 102 functions. See Answer 5. Even so, the output of inverter
5
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
102 is controlled by and, therefore, dependent upon the voltage signal
supplied to inverter 102.
Because claim 1 requires on/ off switching of the second transistor to
be independent of the voltage signal, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of
claims 1-8.
Claim 9. Claim 9 also requires on/off switching of the second
transistor to be independent of the voltage signal. See Claim 9. In rejecting
claim 9, the Examiner relies upon the combination of Xing and AAP A as
describing or suggesting this limitation. See Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner
does not rely upon Kudo, the additional reference cited in the rejection of
claim 9, for its description or suggestion of this limitation. See id. at 8-11.
As discussed above, we determine that the Examiner erred by finding
that the combination of Xing and AAP A describes or suggests the claim
limitation that the switching of the second transistor be independent of the
voltage signal. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of claims 9-13 as
unpatentable over the combination of Xing, AAP A, and Kudo.
Claim 14. Claim 14 also requires on/ off switching of the second
transistor to be independent of the voltage signal. See Claim 14. In
rejecting claim 14, the Examiner relies upon the combination of Xing and
AAP A as describing or suggesting this limitation. See Final Act. 5.
As discussed above, we determine that the Examiner erred by finding
that the combination of Xing and AAP A describes or suggests the claim
limitation that the switching of the second transistor be independent of the
voltage signal. We, therefore, also reverse the rejection of claims 14--20 as
unpatentable over the combination of Xing, AAP A, and Kudo.
6
Appeal2017-006080
Application 14/274,848
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
20 of the '848 Application.
REVERSED
7