Ex Parte Leech et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 2012

11262579 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILLIP A. LEECH, KHALDOUN ALZIEN, and WILLIAM R. JACOBS ____________ Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-30. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 2 INVENTION The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal: 1. A printed circuit board assembly, comprising: a printed circuit board including a processor; a heat sink mountable to the printed circuit board proximate the processor; and a system management logic module comprising logic instructions stored in a computer readable medium which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to: initiate a processor load routine; obtain temperature gradient data in a region proximate the processor during the processor load routine; and verify operation of the heat sink using the temperature gradient data. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, 15-18, 20-24, and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0117779 Al ("Liebenow") and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0172005 Al ("Ford"). Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebenow, Ford, and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0099172 A ("Durham"). Claims 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebenow, Ford, and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0005097 Al ("Ichikawa"). DISCUSSION Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 24, 26, and 29 over Liebenow and Ford on the basis Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 3 of claim 1; the appeal of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 27, and 28 over Liebenow and Ford on the basis of claim 2; the appeal of claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham collectively; and the appeal of claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa collectively. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The issues before us follow. Did the Examiner err in finding that Liebenow would have suggested a circuit board assembly initiates a processor load routine as part of a temperature management protocol, as argued regarding representative claim 1, and the processor is configured to initiate a series of calculations that consumes significant processor resources, as argued regarding representative claim 2? Did the Examiner error in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham and in rejecting claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa? [A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] Â§ 132. As the statute itself instructs, the examiner must "notify the applicant," "stating the reasons for such rejection," "together with such information and references as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing prosecution of his application." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 132. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir. 2011). Here, the Examiner makes the following "specific fact finding," Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 4 2009) (informative), regarding Liebenow and the following specific claim construction regarding claims 1 and 2. The Examiner interpreted a processor load routine in light of appellant's instant specification as a series of calculations (paragraph [0023] e.g., 'a processor load routine may be implemented as a series of calculations that consume significant processor resources. . . . . Alternate implementations of a load routine may include any other processor-intensive operations such as, e.g., mathematical computations') In the instant case, Leibenow teaches a thermal management control circuit ([Figure 1-element 110]) that monitors the temperature of a heat producing electronic component-160, possibly taking measurements at periodic intervals. ([0017], [0018], [0019], [Figure 1], [Figure 2]) A series of calculations are applied to the measurements to determine a rate of change ([Figure 2], [0019]) The Examiner respectfully asserts that the thermal management system ([Figure 1]) comprises a routine ([Figure 2]) implementing a series of mathematical computations (e.g., processor load routine) to determine the rate of temperature changes within the system. . . . . The Examiner respectfully asserts that a series of calculations, as per Figure 2, demonstrate that processor resources are consumed. Appellant does not define 'significant.' (Ans. 8-9.) For their part, the Appellants do not address these findings and claim construction. Instead, they merely argue that "Liebenow describes nothing more than controlling a fan" (App. Br. 11) and "[n]othing in [Paragraphs 017 and 018 of Liebenow] discloses (or even suggests) an arrangement in which Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 5 a processor is configured to initiate a series of calculations that consumes significant processor resources." (App. Br. 12) These arguments "do not . . . explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error," Belinne, at *4, nor the Examiner's specific claim construction is in error. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding Liebenow would have suggested a circuit board assembly initiates a processor load routine as part of a temperature management protocol, as argued regarding representative claim 1, and the processor is configured to initiate a series of calculations that consumes significant processor resources, as argued regarding representative claim 2. "Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue . . . the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations omitted). Here, the Appellants present no arguments regarding the rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham or the rejection of claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 24, 25, 29, and 30 over Liebenow, Ford, and Durham and in rejecting claims 14 and 19 over Liebenow, Ford, and Ichikawa. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-30. Appeal 2010-004466 Application 11/262,579 6 No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb