NXP USA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2020002868 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
15/811,884 11/14/2017 ANIL KUMAR GOTTAPU 82095819US01 7011
23125 7590 03/30/2021
NXP USA, INC.
LAW DEPARTMENT
6501 WILLIAM CANNON DRIVE WEST TX30/OE62
AUSTIN, TX 78735
EXAMINER
O TOOLE, COLLEEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL KUMAR GOTTAPU,
SANJAY KUMAR WADHWA, and RAVI DIXIT
Appeal 2020-002868
Application 15/811,884
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–14, 16–18, and 20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
NXP USA, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1).
2 The rejection is withdrawn as to claims 3, 15, and 19 in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2020-002868
Application 15/811,884

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a base current cancellation circuit. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit comprising:
a base current cancellation circuit comprising:
a first bipolar junction transistor (BJT), and
a current mirror coupled to a base electrode of the
first BJT, the current mirror configured to
provide a mirrored current to the base
electrode of the first BJT, wherein at the
base electrode, only the base electrode is
coupled to the current mirror; and
a complementary to absolute temperature (CTAT) circuit
coupled to receive a voltage signal corresponding
to a reference current of the current mirror, the
CTAT circuit comprising a second BJT coupled to
form a base current based on the voltage signal.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Scheuerlein US 7,230,472 B1 June 12, 2007
REJECTION
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 4–14, 16–18, 20 102(a)(1) Scheuerlein
OPINION
We need address only the independent claims (1, 10, and 18). Each of
those claims requires that at a bipolar junction transistor’s (BJT’s) base
electrode, only the base electrode is coupled to a current mirror configured
to provide a mirrored current to the base electrode.
Appeal 2020-002868
Application 15/811,884

3
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Scheuerlein discloses a BJT (100) with a base electrode coupled to a
resistor (Rc) through a node (130) and to a source of a transistor (203) which
forms a current mirror with another transistor (206) (col. 5, ll. 4–15; col. 6,
ll. 28–31; Fig. 3).
The Examiner finds that “Scheuerlein teaches a current mirror (203
and 206, which are connected to the base of BJT 100), wherein at the base
electrode, only the base electrode is coupled to the current mirror (there are
no intervening elements between the base electrode of 100 and the current
mirror formed by 203 and 206)” (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner finds that “the
resistor Rc is part of the signal path of circuit 140. Therefore, Scheuerlein
teaches a current mirror, wherein at the base electrode, only the base
electrode is coupled to the current mirror” (Ans. 4).
For Scheuerlein to meet Appellant’s independent claims, it is not
sufficient that Scheuerlein has no intervening elements between the base
electrode and the current mirror. The claims require that at the base
electrode, only the base electrode is coupled to a current mirror. At
Scheuerlein’s BJT (100)’s base electrode, the base electrode and a resistor
(Rc) are coupled to the current mirror (203, 206) (Fig. 3). Scheuerlein,
therefore, does not meet the Appellant’s claim requirement that at the base
electrode, only the base electrode is coupled to a current mirror.
Appeal 2020-002868
Application 15/811,884

4
Thus, the Examiner has not established that Scheuerlein discloses
every limitation of the Appellant’s claims. Accordingly we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–14, 16–18, and 20 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–14,
16–18, 20
102(a)(1) Scheuerlein 1, 2, 4–14,
16–18, 20
REVERSED