Ex Parte Venkatraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

13560371 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/560,371 07/27/2012
57299 7590 05/18/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ramnath Venkatraman
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.
Ll2-0851US1 8910
EXAMINER
SKIBINSKI, THOMAS S
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):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMNATH VENKATRAMAN,
PRASAD SUBBARAO, and RUGGERO CASTAGNETTI
Appeal2014-006890
Application 13/560,371
Technology Center 2800
Before: JEFFREYS. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "integrated circuits (ICs) and,
more specifically, to ICs employing adaptive voltage scaling (A VS)." Spec.
Appeal2014-006890
Application 13/560,371
i11. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference (with individual clause lettering added):
1. A critical path monitor, comprising:
[a] an edge detector configured to produce a thermometer
output over a plurality of clock cycles; and
[b] a min_max recorder, coupled to said edge detector
and configured to record minimum and maximum values of
said thermometer output during a polling interval.
References and Re} ections
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Carpenter (US 8,405,413 B2; Mar. 26, 2013). Final
Act. 2.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter and Moore (US
2011/0080202 Al; Apr. 7, 2011). Final Act. 4.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carpenter. Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-12; Advisory Act.; Ans. 11-21) as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Carpenter discloses all
limitations of claim 1. Regarding clause [a], Appellants contend the recited
"'[a]n' edge detector in plain English is explicitly a single edge detector ...
Carpenter, on the other hand[,] clearly teaches two edge detectors" (Reply
2
Appeal2014-006890
Application 13/560,371
Br. 2; see also App. Br. 6) and, in Carpenter, "the output of edge detectors
34A-34B are only valid for just one clock cycle since they are reset, as
shown in Fig. 4, prior to the next clock cycle ... [which] prevents
producing an output 'over a plurality of clock cycles' as recited" (App Br.
7). Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred in finding Carpenter
discloses the limitations recited in clause [b] of claim 1, as 'just because
[Carpenter's] data analysis circuit 39 may record all values of the
comparator 35, the data analysis circuit 39 does not determine both a
maximum and a minimum of the values to calculate the moving average."
Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, because Appellants'
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. We address
each clause of claim 1, as follows.
Clause [a]
Claim 1 recites a "critical path monitor, comprising: an edge detector
configured to produce a thermometer output over a plurality of clock
cycles." We note claim 1 recites the transitional term "comprising," which
the Examiner correctly finds "does not limit the claim to a single edge
detector" 1; thus, the recited "an edge detector" does not preclude Carpenter's
disclosure of two edge detectors, particularly in view of Carpenter's "single
delay path" embodiments. Ans. 12-13 (citing Carpenter 4:7-24).
Additionally, Carpenter discloses processing over multiple clock
pulses, thus each of Carpenter's edge detectors will output "over a plurality
1 "Comprising" is an open-ended term of art used in claim language which
means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be
added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. See
Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3
Appeal2014-006890
Application 13/560,371
of clock cycles." See Ans. 13-14; Carpenter Fig. 6 (lclk line); see also Spec.
i-f 43 (describing output monitored over a plurality of clock cycles).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Carpenter discloses "an edge
detector," configured as recited in clause [a]. See Final Act. 2.
Clause [b]
Regarding clause [b ], we note claim 1 does not recite determine both
values, but rather that the values are recorded. Carpenter discloses the "data
analysis circuit 39 performs statistical calculations on an output of
comparator 35 to provide data which can reflect, but need not be limited to,
a minimum, maximum, or moving average of the output of comparator."
Carpenter 4:35-38. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Carpenter
discloses the limitations of clause [b ], because Carpenter's system will
necessarily record the minimum and maximum values in order to calculate
the disclosed average. See Ans. 15. 2
Additional Reply Brief Arguments
We also note Appellants present new arguments in the Reply Brief
regarding the "thermometer output" (see Reply Br. 4--5) and the "polling
interval" (see Reply Br. 5). These arguments are entitled to no consideration
because they were not presented for the first time in the opening brief. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam
Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for
the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the opening
2 Additionally, we agree with The Examiner that "Carpenter clearly implies
by including 'need not be limited to' that the data analysis circuit can record
both the minimum and maximum." Final Act. 12; see also Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us
the Examiner erred in finding the stated "need not be limited to" phrase
shows Carpenter's "or" conjunction is an inclusive-or.
4
Appeal2014-006890
Application 13/560,371
brief is waived); accord E'x parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI
2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is
not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that
could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal).
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claim 1 and claims 4, 8, and 11, which Appellants do not
separately argue with particularity. See App. Br. 9. Appellants advance no
further substantive argument on independent claim 15, or dependent claims
2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-21. See App. Br. 10-12. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5