Ex Parte Chih-ShengDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201613588197 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) 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. 13/588,197 08/17/2012 Chen Chih-Sheng 1875.0018C 2249 27896 7590 12/28/2016 EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC 9801 Washingtonian Blvd. Suite 750 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 EXAMINER SKIBINSKI, THOMAS S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): epatent@usiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHEN CHIH-SHENG Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 Technology Center 2800 Before PETER F. KRATZ, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9-13, and 15—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Aut. 17, 2012; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Mar. 28, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”). 2 Appellants identify Richwave Technology Corp. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a radio frequency switch with active components having a combination of semiconductor conductivity types. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. A radio frequency (RF) switch, comprising: a common port; a first port; a second port; a first RF pathway extending between the common port and the first port; a second RF pathway extending between the common port and the second port; a first shunt path extending between the first RF pathway and ground; a second shunt path extending between the second RF pathway and ground; and a respective semiconductor switching element disposed in each of the first RF pathway, the second RF pathway, the first shunt path and the second shunt path configured to control whether the given RF pathway or shunt path is enabled or disabled at a given time, wherein the respective semiconductor switching elements disposed in the first and second RF pathways are of a first conductivity type and the respective semiconductor switching elements disposed in the first and second shunt paths are of a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type. 2 Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 REJECTION The Examiner maintained the following ground of rejection:3 Claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Englekirk.4 OPINION Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Br. 7—10. We limit our discussion to representative claim 1, and decide the propriety of the Rejection based on the representative claim alone. Claims 2—7, 9-13, and 15—19 stand or fall with claim 1. After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Action, the Answer, and below. As is relevant to Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Examiner found that Englekirk discloses an RF switch including a common port respectively connected to first and second ports through first and second RF pathways, each such pathway being selectively grounded via a corresponding shunt pathway, and a semiconductor switching element (SI, S2, S3, and S4) disposed in each of the RF and shunt pathways. Final Act. 3. Englekirk specifies that, in use, a given shunt pathway is enabled when the associated RF pathway switch is opened “to reduce the effects of signal leakage through such switch when it is open.” Englekirk 1:22—36. That is, with reference to Englekirk’s schematic diagram of an RF switch shown in 3 Final Act. 3—7; Ans. 2—3. 4 US 7,960,772 B2, issued Jun. 14, 2011 (“Englekirk”). 3 Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 Figure 1 (reproduced below), shunt path switch S4 is closed when S2 is open, and, conversely, shunt switch S3 is closed when SI is open. Id. V_A02 104 Transmit S 108 ) RF 112A T" f\S3 110u S, '116 s2 S4 fV 106 rlReceive S,RF -114 116 FIG. 1 Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a transmit/receive RF switch Thus, the Examiner found Englekirk to teach an RF switch that meets every recitation in claim 1 except for the designation of the conductivity type for the respective switching elements SI—S4. Relying on Englekirk’s teaching that switches SI—S4 can be FETs5 which may be “implemented in a wide variety of designs and polarities” (Englekirk 2:22—35), that “[tjransistor polarity and drain-source orientation may often be interchanged without significantly altering the principle of operation” (id.), and that the FET switches can equally be provided as n-type (NMOS) or p-type (PMOS) transistors (id. at 16:9—11), the Examiner found that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to select any appropriate combination of known n- type and p-type FET switches for S1—S4 in order to provide the desired overall RF switch operability taught by Englekirk. Final Act. 3^4. 5 Field effect transistors. Englekirk 1:39. 4 Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 Appellant acknowledges that “Englekirk teaches that a given switch among switches S1-S4 may be either N type or P type” which would be controlled by a corresponding voltage signal, but argues that Englekirk fails to teach “a specific combination of different conductivity types,” or a combination of conductivity types which would operate under the same control signal. Br. 8—9. However, Appellant’s arguments neither dispute nor account for the Examiner’s underlying rationale, which involves the level of ordinary skill in selecting combinations of switch conductivity types suitable for accomplishing the particular switching operations taught by Englekirk. Nor does Appellant dispute that the various switch conductivity type combinations appropriate for operating Englekirk’s RF switch would include the combination recited in claim 1. The fact that Englekirk does not explicitly describe a particular combination of switch conductivities does not negate Englekirk’s teaching that both n-type and p-type FET switches are suitable, or that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to select any combination of n-type and p-type FET switches that would provide the disclosed functionality in the various RF and shunt pathways. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (reiterating that the arrangement of “old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” generally is obvious when it “yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement”) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Appellant’s argument that Englekirk’s characterization of “alternative transistor designs yielding higher BVds” as “burdensome” or “uneconomical” constitutes a teaching away from combining different switch conductivity types, (Br. 9), also is unpersuasive. Appellant does not 5 Appeal 2015-003260 Application 13/588,197 point us to evidence or technical reasoning sufficient to demonstrate that the so-called “alternative transistor designs yielding higher BVds” mentioned in Englekirk would have been understood to mean designs using different switch conductivity types. Nor does Appellant articulate why Englekirk’s characterization of unspecified higher BVd transistor designs as burdensome or uneconomical would have lead one of ordinary skill in a direction divergent from the transistor design at issue in the claims on appeal. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”). On this record, Appellant has not persuaded us of reversible error. Accordingly, we sustain the Rejection as applied to each of the claims on appeal. DECISION/ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 9—13, and 15—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation