Ex Parte Chih-Sheng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13588197 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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