Ex Parte ARNOLD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14317118 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/317,118 06/27/2014
23494 7590 01/03/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthias ARNOLD
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-74587 9585
EXAMINER
SINGH, DAVID ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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 MATTHIAS ARNOLD, JOHANN ZIPPERER, and
FRANK DORNSEIFER
Appeal2018---005955
Application 14/317, 118
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-20. (Appeal Br. 8-9.) We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed June 27, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated June
16, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed October 16, 2017 ("Appeal Br.");
and Examiner's Answer dated February 20, 2018 ("Ans."). No Reply Brief
was filed.
2 Appellant, the applicant Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, identifies
Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2018---005955
Application 14/317, 118
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to power supply domains
including a power gated electronic device including a power supply domain
coupled to a power gate switch, a comparator and control logic. (Spec.
,r,r 4---6.)
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A power gated electronic device, comprising:
a power supply domain coupled to a power gate switch,
the power supply domain configured to receive a voltage from a
power supply;
a comparator configured to receive a voltage from the
power supply domain and compare the voltage from the power
supply domain with a threshold level;
and
control logic configured to receive the output of the
comparator and, based on the comparison between the voltage
from power supply domain and the threshold level, cause the
power supply domain voltage to be lowered;
wherein the power supply domain provides power to
circuitry of the power gated electronic device.
( Appeal Br. 9, Claim Appendix.)
Claims 9 and 15, directed to a method and a system, respectively, are
similar in that each recites a power supply domain that provides power to
circuitry as recited in claim 1. ( Appeal Br. 10-11, Claim Appendix.)
2
Appeal2018---005955
Application 14/317, 118
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 9-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as
anticipated by Chung et al. (US 2013/0241509 Al, published on
September 19, 2013, "Chung"); and
2. Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chung and Lam et
al. (US 8,063,618 B2, issued on November 22, 2011, "Lam").
(Final Act. 4--9; Ans. 2.)
Appellant argues claims 1, 9, and 15 together, and indicates that
claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-14, and 16-20 stand or fall with the independent claims.
(Appeal Br. 7.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for
disposition of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DISCUSSION
The sole issue in dispute in the present appeal is whether Chung
discloses a power supply that provides power to circuitry of, in the case of
claim 1, the power gated electronic device.
The Examiner found that Chung discloses a pulse width modulation
(PWM) circuit ( 51 ), which corresponds to the "power supply domain"
recited in claim 1, and that the PWM circuit provides power to circuity of
the power gated electronic device. (Final Act. 4, citing Chung, Figs. 1, 2,
5A, and 5B, ,r,r 8, 9, 23-32; Ans. 3--4.)
Appellant argues that Chung does not disclose a power supply domain
that provides power to the circuitry of the power gated electronic device
because the PWM circuit disclosed in Chung generates a switching signal
for switching the transformer 5 and regulating an output voltage VO and
3
Appeal2018---005955
Application 14/317, 118
output current I0 of the power converter. (Appeal Br. 6-7, citing Chung,
Fig. 2, if 24.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner
explains that a "power supply domain" as interpreted in accordance with the
claims in light of the Specification is "any region or part of the device which
receives voltage from a power supply and provides power to circuitry of the
device." (Ans. 3.) The Examiner explains that "circuitry" is interpreted to
mean "the components of an electric circuit." (Ans. 3--4.) The Examiner
interprets the limitation "wherein the power supply domain provides power
to circuitry of the power gated electronic device" to be where "the power
supply domain provides power to any component of the power gated
electronic device." (Ans. 4.) The Examiner then explains
the PWM circuit [ of Chung] does provide power to circuitry of
the power gated electronic device since the power gate switch is
a component of the power gated electronic device and would
not operate without a signal from the PWM circuit, thus
providing power to circuitry of the power gate electronic
device.
(Ans. 4, emphases omitted.)
Although Appellant provides a summary of Chung's disclosure of the
PWM circuit 51 and concludes that Chung does not teach a power supply
that provides power to circuitry of the power gated electronic device,
Appellant does not provide sufficient particular arguments to indicate why
the Examiner's interpretation of the claim terms and application to Chung
constitute reversible error. (Appeal Br. 6-7; see Ans. 3.) See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board [has] reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
4
Appeal2018---005955
Application 14/317, 118
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Accordingly,
Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error on the part of the Examiner.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims
2--4, 6, 7, and 9-20, also subject to Rejection 1, as well as claim 8, subject to
Rejection 2, and not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-20.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
5