QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020006779 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 15/456,779 03/13/2017 Mehdi Saeidi 49606.371US01 (161661) 2756 101306 7590 02/02/2022 Haynes and Boone, LLP (36340) IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER AZAD, MD ABUL K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2119 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): gary.edwards@haynesboone.com ipdocketing@haynesboone.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHDI SAEIDI, RAJAT MITTAL, and MELIKA ROSHANDELL Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 Technology Center 2100 BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a thermal mitigation system which calculates skin temperature at a multitude of locations and uses the skin temperature values in a thermal mitigation algorithm.” Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: acquiring temperature values from a plurality of temperature sensors spatially distributed within a device; using the temperature values, calculating skin temperature values corresponding to each of the temperature sensors; comparing the skin temperature values to a first temperature threshold; in response to determining that at least one of the skin temperature values exceeds the first temperature threshold, measuring temperature over time; comparing the temperature over time to a second temperature threshold; and in response to determining that the temperature over time exceeds the second temperature threshold, reducing power consumption of the device. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Anderson US 9,047,067 B2 June 2, 2015 Liang US 2011/0301778 A1 Dec. 8, 2011 Saeidi US 2018/0143862 A1 May 24, 2018 Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 8, 16, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of Saeidi. Final Act. 5-9. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Liang and Anderson. Final Act. 11-19. OPINION The Provisional Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1, 8, 16, and 21 over Claim 1 of Saeidi Saeidi, U.S. Patent Application No. 15/373,067, had a Notice of Abandonment mailed on March 25, 2021. We, therefore, reverse this ground of rejection. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-24 over Liang and Anderson The Examiner finds Liang and Anderson teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 11-14. The Examiner finds Liang teaches acquiring temperature values from a plurality of temperature sensors spatially distributed within a device; using the temperature values, calculating skin temperature values corresponding to each of the temperature sensors; comparing the skin temperature values to a first temperature threshold; in response to determining that at least one of the skin temperature values exceeds the first temperature threshold, measuring temperature over time; Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 4 (claim 1). Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner finds Anderson teaches “comparing the temperature over time to a second temperature threshold; and in response to determining that the temperature over time exceeds the second temperature threshold, reducing power consumption of the device” (claim 1). Final Act. 13-14. The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Liang and Anderson to achieve the claimed invention. Final Act. 14 (“in order to actively reduce heat generated in a PCD [(portable computing device)] using operational thermal sensor, as suggested by Anderson”). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. “[T]he thing [(Liang’s specified temperature limit (Liang ¶¶ 23-24))] that the rejection cites as the claimed ’first temperature threshold’ cannot be exceeded, whereas claim 1 clearly recites, ‘in response to determining that at least one of the skin temperature values exceeds the first temperature threshold.’” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Liang ¶¶ 23-24). Further, “as noted by Liang, the ‘extremely small region . . . exceed[ing] a specified temperature limit’ is not compared to a first temperature threshold because it ‘might not be meaningful.’” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Liang ¶ 23). ii. “But this cited passage [(Liang ¶ 3)] does not refer to Liang’s ‘zone-specific temperature limit,’ which the rejection cites as the claimed ‘first temperature threshold,’ nor does paragraph [0003] suggest that Trep should be allowed to exceed the zone-specific temperature limit.” Appeal Br. 12. iii. “There is no evidence of record that the proposed modification of Liang using Anderson would have provided better heat management than is already provided by Liang.” Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 5 In response, the Examiner further explains why Liang teaches the argued limitations. See Ans. 19 (“determines whether Trep is greater than or less than a predefined threshold”). The Examiner further explains why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Liang and Anderson to achieve the claimed invention. See Ans. 20-21 (“[T]here is a need to keep monitoring the temperature to measure against a second temp threshold as in Anderson.”) In reply, Appellant further argues “the rejection fails to show any action in response to Liang’s ‘predefined threshold’ that would satisfy the claimed ‘measuring temperature over time.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues “there is no evidence of record that the proposed modification of Liang using Anderson would have provided better heat management than is already provided in Liang.” Reply Br. 3. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Liang teaches: When the thermal control process in the device 2 runs in- the-field, it gathers temperature data or obtains temperature readings from the embedded sensors (sensor that are integrated in the device at the time of manufacture of the device.) It then plugs this data into the stored models of any virtual temperatures that are needed for the points of a given zone. In other words, the thermal control process analyzes the obtained temperature readings, to compute the virtual temperatures. The control process then analyzes the virtual temperatures, together with any direct or actual temperature reading for any point at which there is an embedded sensor, to calculate Trep (in this example, as the average of the point temperatures.) In then compares Trep to the stored constraints for this zone (i.e., determines whether Trep is Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 6 greater than or less than a predefined threshold), based on which or in response to which it will take an action that affects thermal generation in the device (e.g., making one or more decisions on various power consuming activity limits that are expected to prevent Trep from going outside its constraint, or that bring Trep back within its constraint.) Liang ¶ 34 (emphasis added), cited at Ans. 19. We determine Liang teaches “acquiring temperature values from a plurality of temperature sensors spatially distributed within a device; using the temperature values, calculating skin temperature values corresponding to each of the temperature sensors” (claim 1) because Liang describes obtaining temperature readings from multiple sensors, and calculating virtual temperatures (skin temperatures). Liang ¶ 34. We further determine Liang teaches “comparing the skin temperature values to a first temperature threshold” (claim 1) because Liang describes analyzing the virtual temperatures and calculating Trep, and comparing Trep to a predefined threshold. Liang ¶ 34. Appellant’s arguments relating to the “first temperature threshold” (claim 1) do not show Examiner error because the arguments do not squarely address the “predefined threshold” described in Liang as being compared to Trep. Liang ¶ 34; see also Liang ¶ 25 (“When the representative temperature reaches a threshold value, control algorithms then take one or more appropriate actions to decrease the thermal output of the device so as to regulate the representative temperature.”). Liang further discloses: Note that as part of a closed loop thermal control process, the above described operations are repeated by the thermal manager 30, for instance at a predetermined frequency, during Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 7 in-the-field use of the device 2 so as to regulate the representative temperature, e.g., continuously while the device 2 is not in sleep mode. The thermal manager 30 may reduce the performance (or performance capability) of the device 2 when the computed representative temperature rises above a predetermined threshold, and increase the performance (or allow the performance capability to increase) when the computed representative temperatures drops below the threshold. Liang ¶ 35 (emphasis added), cited at Ans. 19. We further determine Liang teaches “in response to determining that at least one of the skin temperature values exceeds the first temperature threshold, measuring temperature over time” (claim 1) because Liang describes continuously regulating the representative temperature, and thus suggests measuring temperature over time when the representative temperature exceeds the predetermined threshold. Liang ¶ 35. Appellant’s arguments do not show Examiner error because Liang describes continuously regulating the representative temperature, and thus suggests measuring temperature over time when the representative temperature exceeds the predetermined threshold. Liang ¶ 35; see also Liang ¶ 3 (“A processor runs this software during the in-the-field use, monitoring or collecting data from the temperature sensors over time and then analyzing the data and comparing to predetermined constraints, to make decisions on which thermal actions to take in order to effectively manage the thermal behavior of the device so as to maintain or regulate the temperature of a given location within a specified constraint.”). Regarding a reason to combine the teachings of the references, Anderson teaches: Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 8 As indicated by block 805, a thermal sensor 157 is monitored. As indicated by block 810, if the temperature indicated by the monitored thermal sensor 157 does not exceed a threshold, then the thermal sensor 157 continues to be monitored. However, if the temperature indicated by the monitored thermal sensor 157 exceeds a threshold, then one of the above-described “sensorless” thermal mitigations methods 300, 400, 600 or 700 is performed, as indicated by block 815. As in those methods, a signal associated with an electronic element is monitored, such as the power amplifier control signal 173 or a MIPS metric. Note that the sensorless heat mitigation method may or may not result in a reduction in the sensed temperature, depending on whether the electronic element associated with the monitored signal is primarily responsible for the increased temperature. If, as indicated by block 820, the temperature monitored by the thermal sensor 157 no longer exceeds the threshold, then the sensorless heat mitigation method was likely effective, and the thermal sensor 157 continues to be monitored (block 805). However, if the temperature monitored by the thermal sensor 157 continues to exceed the threshold, then the sensorless heat mitigation method was likely ineffective because an electronic element other than the one associated with the monitored signal was primarily responsible for the increased temperature. Therefore, an action is performed to mitigate heat production, as indicated by block 825. The thermal mitigation action may be directed to an electronic element other than the electronic element associated with the monitored signal. The thermal mitigation action may be directed to an electronic element or small group of elements that is in close thermal proximity to the thermal sensor 157 or, alternatively, to a wider group of electronic elements. The thermal mitigation action may include backing off one or more processes, as described above, or any other suitable thermal mitigation action. Anderson, col. 17, ll. 1-34, cited at Ans. 20. Thus, Anderson teaches that heat management may be improved by utilizing first and second threshold comparisons, and reducing power consumption after the second comparison. Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 9 Anderson, col. 17, ll. 1-34; see also Anderson Figs. 1-8, cited at Final Act. 13-14. Appellant’s arguments relating to the Examiner’s proposed combination do not show any error because the Examiner’s reason for the combination is supported by evidence from the record. See Final Act. 14 (“in order to actively reduce heat generated in a PCD [(portable computing device)] using operational thermal sensor, as suggested by Anderson”); see also Anderson, col. 17, ll. 1-34, Figs. 1-8. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13 and 15-23 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13-15. Claim 14 further recites “calculating the temperature over time value comprises integrating the temperature over time.” Claim 24 similarly further recites “wherein measuring temperature over time includes integrating the temperature over time.” The Examiner finds Liang teaches the further recited subject matter. Final Act. 17 (citing Liang ¶¶ 3, 22-24). Appellant argues “none of the cited portions refer to ‘integrating the temperature over time,’ as required” by the claims. In response, the Examiner explains “the combination of Liang- Anderson discloses this claim under BRI [(broadest reasonable interpretation)], because Liang discloses the “‘representative temperature Trep of a zone of the device 2 calculated as the functional summation of the temperatures.’” Ans. 21 (citing Liang ¶ 22). Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 10 In reply, Appellant argues “support for the limitations of claims 14 and 24 may be found at least at [0042] of the Specification.” Reply Br. 3. We interpret claims 14 and 24, based on the claim language itself, as requiring integrating temperature over time. This interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See Spec ¶ 42 (“An example includes integrating a temperature reading (one of the junction temperatures) from at least one of the temperature sensors over a particular time period.”). Liang discloses calculating the representative temperature as a weighted sum of temperatures. Liang ¶¶ 22-24. Liang further discloses “monitoring or collecting data from the temperature sensors over time and then analyzing the data and comparing to predetermined constraints.” Liang ¶ 3. Given our interpretation of the claim language, we determine Liang’s weighted sum of temperatures and data collection over time do not describe the required integrating temperature over time. Nor does the Examiner adequately provide a reason why Liang would have been modified to include the required feature. See Liang ¶¶ 3, 22-24. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 24. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-24 is affirmed in part. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Appeal 2020-006779 Application 15/456,779 11 1, 8, 16, 21 Obviousness-type Double Patenting, Saeidi 1, 8, 16, 21 1-24 103 Liang, Anderson 1-13, 15-23 14, 24 Overall Outcome 1-13, 15-23 14, 24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED IN PART