2020002388 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

Imagination Technologies Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 20, 2021

2020002388 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

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. 15/261,598 09/09/2016 Ravichandra Giriyappa 2645-0315US01 6984 125968 7590 10/20/2021 Potomac Law Group PLLC (IMGTEC) 8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430 Vienna, VA 22182 EXAMINER YEN, PAUL JUEI-FU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2186 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/20/2021 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): Eofficeaction@appcoll.com Patents@potomaclaw.com vdeluca@potomaclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAVICHANDRA GIRIYAPPA, VINAYAK PRASAD, and OANA ROSU Appeal 2020-002388 Application 15/261,598 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appeal 2020-002388 Application 15/261,598 2 Appellant1 requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision on Appeal mailed July 19, 2021 (“Decision” or “Dec.”) where we affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3−13, and 15−20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have reviewed the Request for Rehearing to determine if we overlooked or misapprehended the matters alleged, and we are not persuaded that reconsideration is warranted. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the briefs are not permitted in the request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to express disagreement with a decision. The proper course for an applicant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to appeal, not to file a request for rehearing to re-argue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. First, Appellant argues that we overlooked Examiner’s findings that neither North2 nor Taylor3 discloses the “intermediate delayed version” limitation,4 and that, therefore, “no possible combination of the disclosures of North and Taylor could have resulted in the claimed subject matter.” 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies Limited. Appeal Br. 2. 2 US 2007/0285176 A1 (“North”). 3 US 6,556,249 B1 (“Taylor”). 4 Claim 1 recites this limitation as follows: an intermediate delayed version of the clock signal in dependence on the determined amount of delay. Appeal Br. 9 (Claim Appendix). Claim 13 does not recite the “dependence on the determined amount of delay.” Appeal 2020-002388 Application 15/261,598 3 Req. Reh’g 2 (citing Reply 2; Ans. 6; Final Act. 7). We are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Appellant’s argument or the Examiner’s findings. The Answer sets out in detail the Examiner’s rejection including the finding that “[e]ven though North does not anticipate the ‘intermediate delayed version is selected in dependence on the determined amount of delay’ limitation, it remains obvious.” Ans. 6. The Examiner continues the analysis stating, “the Examiner acknowledged [in the Final Action] that Taylor does not explicitly teach the ‘intermediate delayed version is selected in dependence on the determined amount of delay’ limitation.” Id. 7. Nevertheless, the Examiner reasoned that “North, teaches selecting an intermediate delayed version of a clock, through incremental changes of the phase of an output clock signal based on appropriate control (an ‘intermediate delayed version is selected in dependent on the determined an amount of delay).” Id. 7−8. Appellant’s argument misstates the Examiner’s findings by arguing that the Examiner acknowledged that North does not disclose the “intermediate delayed version” limitation. The argument does not address the Examiner’s findings, which we discussed in our Decision, that North teaches the intermediate delayed versions of a clock and that the “determined amount of delay” portion of that limitation is taught by Taylor. See Dec. 6 (analyzing Appellant’s arguments in the context of improper bodily incorporation); Ans. 6. In other words, we addressed the Examiner’s findings that although North does not anticipate or expressly disclose the limitation, it nevertheless teaches an intermediate delayed version of a clock dependent on a delay, and Taylor contributes the “determined amount of delay” of that limitation. Appellant’s argument presuming that the Examiner Appeal 2020-002388 Application 15/261,598 4 finds neither reference discloses the disputed limitation was not overlooked or misapprehended—it simply had no merit in light of the record as discussed in page 4 of our Decision. Second, Appellant argues that our analysis is factually incorrect. Req. Reh’g 2−3. Specifically, Appellant argues that the “dependence on the determined amount of delay” is not present in either North or Taylor. Id. at 2. And regarding Taylor, to the extent it outputs a delayed signal, Appellant argues such action is “a single act; it is not performed incrementally.” Id. These arguments do not point out something we overlooked or misapprehended in Appellant’s briefs. Rather, the argument presents disagreement with our analysis and again improperly focuses on Taylor’s lack of disclosure of an “intermediate delayed version,” which North teaches, not Taylor. Taylor contributes the teaching of the “determined amount of delay.” Third, Appellant points out arguments it made with regard to North’s teachings of reduction of spurs, and size of the phase steps spread out over smaller steps, to conclude that North’s teachings fail to teach “in dependence on the determined amount of delay.” Req. Reh’g 3. Again, this argument shows disagreement with our Decision, not a presented argument that we misapprehended or overlooked. More importantly, this argument repeats a misinterpretation of the record, in which the Examiner found Taylor, not North, teaches the “determined amount of delay.” See Dec. 6 (stating that Appellant’s “argument does not address the Examiner’s combination of teachings, which does not bodily incorporate all of North’s teachings, but rather relies on Taylor (not North) teaching the ‘determined amount of delay.’” citing Ans. 6). Appeal 2020-002388 Application 15/261,598 5 CONCLUSION In sum, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended the issues Appellant raises in its Request. Accordingly, the Request is denied. REHEARING DENIED Outcome of Decision on Rehearing Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6−13, 15, 18−20 103 Taylor, North 1, 3, 6−13, 15, 18−20 4−5, 16−17 103 Taylor, Seth 4−5, 16−17 Overall Outcome 1, 3–13, 15−20 Final Outcome of Appeal After Rehearing Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 6−13, 15, 18−20 103 Taylor, North 1, 3, 6−13, 15, 18−20 4−5, 16−17 103 Taylor, Seth 4−5, 16−17 Overall Outcome 1, 3–13, 15−20