TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATEDDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 22, 20222021001156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022) 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. 15/098,155 04/13/2016 Abhishek GUPTA TI-75980 2514 23494 7590 03/22/2022 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER JORDAN, KIMBERLY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ABHISHEK GUPTA, DIEN MAC, CHARUL SAXENA, KEVIN IP, and JEFF PERRY Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17-31. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 1-16 are cancelled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Apr. 13, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Jan 27, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed June 12, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 7, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed Dec. 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments, Inc., Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for determining and visualizing power supply designs. Spec. ¶27. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 1 above depicts system 100 including remotely located application site 140 in which application server 155, upon receiving via communication network 135 from user device 105 design requirements 130 including input voltage source 115, load 120, runs visualization design tool application 160 to display power supply designs 125 based on design requirements 130, Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 3 design heuristics 165 and optimization heuristics 170 along with selected component information 150 from data store 145. Spec. ¶ 27. Claims 17, 21, and 25 are independent. Claim 17, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 17. A method, comprising: receiving, at a computing resource, a plurality of basic design requirements including an input voltage value, an output voltage value, and an output current; generating, by the computing resource, data to be populated into a user interface, the data including user- selectable options, the options including a frequency synchronization to an external clock, a soft start time value, a value indicative of maximum output voltage ripple, a value indicative of maximum inductor current ripple, a bill of materials cost, a parts distributor, a bill of materials count, and a device physical attribute; receiving, at the computing resource, a selected option; using electrical components from a data store, determining, by the computing resource, a plurality of power supply designs that satisfy the basic design requirements; generating, by the computing resource, a subset of the plurality of power supply designs based on the selected option; and transmitting, by the computing resource, the generated subset of the plurality of power supply designs. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 4 III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Perry US 2010/0325599 A1 Dec. 23, 2010 Cheng US 2014/00266112 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 IV. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Perry and Cheng. Final Act. 2- 8. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-8, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-2.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Belated arguments are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”) Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 5 Brief.5 Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3-4. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Perry and Cheng teaches or suggests a user-selectable design parameter including “a value indicative of maximum inductor current ripple,” as recited in claim 17. Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues that Perry’s disclosure of a voltage ripple is not equivalent to the claimed current ripple. Id. (citing Perry ¶¶ 45, 65, 69, 85). More particularly, Appellant argues that although the current ripple can be calculated from the disclosed max voltage ripple and the known parameter value of the equivalent series resistance (ESR), as advanced by the Examiner, such a conversion of voltage to current would necessitate additional calculation as well as other information and circuit factors (e.g., circuit inductances and capacitances, transient considerations). Reply Br. 2. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner that the disputed claim limitation of “a value indicative of maximum inductor current ripple” does not require a maximum inductor current ripple itself, but a value which indicates a maximum inductor current ripple. Ans. 3. 5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 6 Perry discloses a system for determining and visualizing power supply designs based on design requirements obtained from a user. Perry, Abstr. In particular, Perry discloses that the design requirements include the information regarding the load to be driven, required current, maximum input current and voltage. Id. ¶¶ 19, 26, 57. Perry also discloses that the design requirements further include minimum voltage output ripple as well as the load required for providing such minimum voltage output, which may be required to withstand sudden change in the load current (i.e., transient response). Id. ¶ 65. Perry further discloses that power supply designs may set a high efficiency or low voltage ripple so that an optimization heuristic may set a low target for an ESR parameter of an output capacitor to reduce power dissipation and/or ripple so that capacitors with low ESR would achieve higher scores than capacitors with higher ESR thereby improving efficiency. Id. ¶ 69. Additionally, Perry discloses that design requirements may also include maximum voltage and the load (e.g., inductor) to be driven by the power supply. Id. ¶ 115. We agree with the Examiner that Perry explicitly teaches maximum current as one of the power supply design requirements. Ans. 4 (citing Perry ¶¶ 26, 57, 115, 129, 143). We further agree with the Examiner that because Perry discloses selecting power supply design requirements to include maximum voltage ripple, ESR for a driven load (e.g., capacitor or inductor) in such a way to withstand transient responses, it would have been within the purview of the ordinarily-skilled artisan to calculate the max inductor current ripple from Perry’s disclosure. Ans. 3 (citing Perry ¶¶ 19, 65, 69, 70, 93). Accordingly, we are satisfied that the proposed combination of Perry and Cheng teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. Because we are Appeal 2021-001156 Application 15/098,155 7 not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as obvious over the combined teachings of Perry and Cheng. Regarding the rejection of claims 18-31, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 17. As such, claims 18-31 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-31. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 17-31 103 Perry, Cheng 17-31 VIII. 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation