Ex Parte Gu

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 23, 2013

12131982 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD GU ____________ Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 101-14, 21, and 22. Claims 2, 9, and 15-20 have been cancelled, and claims 23 and 24 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Although claim 10 depends from cancelled claim 9, we presume that claim 10 depends from independent claim 8 in this opinion. Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention generally relates to an apparatus for cancelling supply noise including an input circuit operable to receive an input from a charge pump and a drive circuit connected to an output of the input circuit. The drive circuit is operable to provide an output matching the input to the input circuit when a voltage source powering the input circuit and the drive circuit is stable, and to introduce a contrary voltage change on the buffered output when the voltage source is noisy, with the contrary voltage change being contrary to a voltage change on the voltage source due to noise. See generally Abstract; Figs. 1, 3, 4. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An apparatus for cancelling supply noise, the apparatus comprising: an input circuit including: an amplifier having an internal node, a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, wherein the first input terminal receives an input from a charge pump; and a filter that is coupled to the internal node; and a drive circuit coupled to an output terminal of the amplifier of the input circuit and to the filter, wherein the drive circuit introduces a contrary voltage change to an output at the output terminal when a voltage source powering the input circuit and the drive circuit is noisy such that the contrary voltage change is contrary to a voltage change on the voltage source due to noise. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kamata (US 5,489,873; issued Feb. 6, 1996). Ans. 4-5.2 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 19, 2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 24, 2010 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 8, 2010 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 3 2. The Examiner rejected claim 3, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Ans. 9.3 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 10-14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawago (US 2005/0237092 A1; published Oct. 27, 2005) in view of Kamata. Ans. 5-8. 4. The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kawago in view of Kamata, and further in view of Shacter (US 5,847,606; issued Dec. 8, 1998). Ans. 8-9. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER KAMATA Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kamata discloses a filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) coupled to an internal node of an amplifier (current amplifier 2), where the filter is coupled to an internal node of the amplifier “by way of the amplifier’s output terminal.” Ans. 4-5, 9-10. Appellant argues that the filter of Kamata is “coupled” to an output terminal of an amplifier, not an internal node of an amplifier. App. Br. 12. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Kamata discloses “a filter that is coupled to the internal node” of an 3 The Examiner’s Answer lists only claim 3 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Ans. 9. However, the Examiner’s Answer also maintains every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office Action. Ans. 3. The Final Office Action lists claims 3, 10, and 11 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kamata. Final Rej. 6-7. Accord Ans. 2 (confirming this status). We therefore address the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 11 on this basis. Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 4 amplifier, where the filter is directly coupled to only the output terminal of the amplifier? ANALYSIS This appeal hinges on whether Kamata’s capacitor 5b and resistor 7b, which the Examiner maps to the claimed “filter,” is “coupled” to an internal node of amplifier 2. We find that it is so coupled. Claim 1 requires that the filter be “coupled” to an internal node of the amplifier. The term “coupled” is not defined in the Specification. While the Specification does use the term “operatively coupled” once, the use of the two distinct terms does not define “coupled” to so limit our interpretation See Spec. ¶ 0021. The plain meaning of “coupled” encompasses both direct and indirect coupling. See MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447 Fed. Appx. 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (declining to limit “electrically coupled” to direct coupling);4 see also US Patent Application Publication 2002/0116139, at ¶ 0038 (“Herein, the phrase ‘coupled with’ is defined to mean directly connected to or indirectly connected with through one or more intermediate components.”). Here, the claim does not require direct coupling. Nor does the Specification require that such a limitation be read into the claim. On this record, we find nothing to exclude indirect coupling via intervening circuitry or components, as is encompassed by the term’s plain meaning. 4 Cf. Ex parte Palomar, No. 2009-011698, 2011 WL 3666727, at *2 (BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (construing a claim reciting “directly coupled” as excluding indirect coupling). Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 5 It is undisputed that Kamata’s filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) are directly coupled to the output terminal of amplifier 2. App. Br. 11-12; Ans. 9-10. And Appellant does not dispute that Kamata’s amplifier 2 has an internal node that is coupled, directly or indirectly, to the output terminal. As a result, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s finding that Kamata’s filter (capacitor 5b and resistor 7b) is “coupled” (albeit indirectly) to an internal node of amplifier 2. See Ans. 9 (finding that Kamata’s filter is coupled to an internal node of the amplifier “by way of the amplifier’s output terminal”) (emphasis added). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 3-7 not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3, 8, 10-14, 21, and 22. Ans. 5-10. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and alleges that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 13-14. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1 and 3-7 under § 102, and (2) claims 3, 8, 10-14, 21, and 22 under § 103. Appeal 2010-012081 Application 12/131,982 6 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 21, and 22 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc