Robert C. Taft et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 18, 201913847261 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/847,261 03/19/2013 Robert C. TAFT TI-73466 8039 23494 7590 07/18/2019 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER COMBER, KEVIN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/18/2019 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 ROBERT C. TAFT and ALEXANDER BODEM ____________ Appeal 2018-001793 Application 13/847,261 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING This is in response to a Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), dated July 2, 2019, of our Decision, mailed May 2, 2019 (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of appealed claims 1, 7, 13, and 19– 21 as well as the § 103 rejection of claim 6. We have reconsidered our Decision, in light of Appellant’s1 comments in the Request for Rehearing, and we find no error in the disposition of the §§ 102 and 103(a) rejections. 1 The real party in interest is stated to be Texas Instruments Incorporated, which is also the Applicant/Appellant (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2018-001793 Application 13/847,261 2 We have reviewed the arguments set forth by Appellant in the Request. However, we remain of the opinion that the subject matter of the claims is properly rejected and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant appears to merely reargue their position that the Examiner has unreasonably interpreted the claim language to encompass Yue2 (Req. Reh’g 2, 3).3 This argument is not persuasive of any error in our Decision. Appellant states that the differentiation of the shunt node and sense node is “an essential ‘feature’” where the “sense” node is “in front of the inductor” and the “shunt” node is “behind the inductor” (Req. Reh’g 4). However, the claim language does not recite that the “sense” node must be “in front of the inductor” and that the “shunt” node must be “behind the inductor.” As currently recited in claim 1, a sense node is “connected to the input node” and a shunt node is “coupled to controllably receive an inductive current based on the input voltage signal received at the input node” (Claim 1). Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Although Appellant continues to argue that the sensing and shunt nodes are at the same location in Yue, this is contrary to the Examiner’s position (Ans. generally). As depicted on Fig. 3 of Yue, the “Desired Signal” is sensed at the point labeled A, which would be used to create an 2 Yue et al., US 2002/0121924A1, published Sept. 5, 2002 (hereinafter “Yue”). 3 Appellant appears to fail to explicitly set forth “the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board” as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Thus, the request appears to be improper. Nonetheless, we have responded to Appellant’s apparent reargument of their position on appeal. Appeal 2018-001793 Application 13/847,261 3 input for the ESD Protection Circuit 40 after the inductor 110. As explained by the Examiner, the signal detected at A cannot be the same signal that comes out of inductor 110 (labeled 35 on Fig. 3 of Yue) because the inductor has its own resistivity which alters the original signal that was at point A (e.g., Ans. 4). Therefore, the node near the label 35 immediately before the ESD would be encompassed by the shunt node recited in claim 1 because the resulting signal is what is fed into the ESD and shunted if voltage is of the appropriate strength, as explained by the Examiner (id.). Accordingly, no persuasive merit is present in Appellant’s argument that the Examiner, and the Board, erred in interpreting the claim language (Req. Reh’g 2). Thus, we decline to modify our decision to affirm the Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103(a) rejections. In conclusion, based on the foregoing, Appellant’s Request is granted to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but is denied with respect to making changes to the final disposition of the rejection therein. This Decision on the Request for Rehearing incorporates our Decision, mailed May 2, 2019, and is final for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). DENIED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation