Ex Parte Mayder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2012

11385963 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROMI MAYDER
____________________

Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-9. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim on Appeal
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, with emphases added,
reads as follows:
1. A system for generating a clock signal, the system
comprising:

an inverted mesa AT-cut quartz crystal resonator;

an oscillator circuit coupled to the inverted mesa AT-cut
quartz crystal resonator, oscillating at the fundamental
frequency of the inverted mesa AT-cut quartz crystal resonator,
and having an output stage producing a clock signal at the
fundamental frequency of the inverted mesa AT-cut quartz
crystal resonator; and

a loosely regulated temperature environment to which
the inverted mesa AT-cut quartz crystal resonator and the
oscillator circuit are thermally coupled, the loosely regulated
temperature environment having a regulated temperature that is
not dependent on a temperature of the inverted mesa AT-cut
quartz crystal resonator or the oscillator circuit, and the loosely
regulated temperature environment providing open loop control
of the temperature of the inverted mesa AT-cut quartz crystal
resonator.

Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

3
Rejections on Appeal1
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Echols (U.S. Patent No. 4,839,613).
Ans. 3-5.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Echols and Jones (U.S. Patent No.
6,392,431 B1). Ans. 5-6.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Echols and Satoh (U.S. Patent
No. 7,173,499 B2). Ans. 6-7.
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Echols and Watanabe (U.S. Patent No.
5,883,550). Ans. 7.
Appellant’s Contentions
(1) Appellant contends (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-5) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because:
(a) Echols fails to disclose “a loosely regulated temperature
environment,” as set forth in claim 1 (App. Br. 8);
(b) “Echols appears to suggest that maintaining a temperature at
or near a desired temperature means maintaining the temperature to
within a few millidegrees of the desired temperature” (App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 2-3);

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10-12 (see App. Br. 7-8).
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

4
(c) Echols’ tight control (i.e., within a few millidegrees) is
different than the recited “loosely regulated temperature environment”
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3);
(d) Echols provides closed loop or direct control of the
temperature of resonator 10, and not open loop control based on the
temperature of a loosely regulated temperature environment as recited
in claim 1 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3-4); and
(e) claims 2, 7, and 8 are patentable for the same reasons as
presented for claim 1 from which claims 2, 7, and 8 depend (App. Br.
10).
(2) Appellant contends (App. Br. 11-12) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3, 5, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Echols with the various secondary references because:
(a) Jones, Satoh, and Watanabe fail to cure the deficiencies of
Echols with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12); and
(b) Echols teaches away from claim 6 because Echols heats
oven 22 to an internal temperature T that is above ambient (App. Br.
11 citing Echols col. 5, ll. 13-17), thus it would not have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate Echols’ resonator at 26
degrees C, or about at room temperature (App. Br. 11).
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the briefs, the following principal
issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-9 as being obvious
because Echols fails to teach or suggest a system for generating a clock
signal that includes a resonator and oscillator circuit for providing “a loosely
Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

5
regulated temperature environment” and open loop control of the resonator
temperature, as set forth in independent claim 1 on appeal?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 2-4) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-11).
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner regarding
Echols in relation to claim 1 (see Ans. 3-4 and 8-10), and highlight and
address specific findings and arguments with respect to Echols as follows.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellant presents arguments as to claims 1 and 6 concerning the
“loosely regulated temperature environment” recited in those claims. At
issue is the definition for “loosely regulated.” Appellant’s Specification
(Spec. 4:5-8 and 7:6-8) defines a “loosely regulated environment” as at
about a room temperature of 26 degrees C plus/minus ½ degree C (i.e.,
Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

6
around 79 degrees F) (Spec. 4:5-11); and as being “within one or two
degrees Centigrade” (Spec. 7:7).
Because “a few millidegrees” is within the range of plus/minus 2
degrees C defined in the Specification as corresponding to “loosely
regulated,” the control or regulation of temperature in Echols “within a few
millidegrees” (see col. 2, l. 32) and “at or near the desired level” (see col. 5,
ll. 24-25) is encompassed by the recitation in claim 1 of “a loosely regulated
temperature environment.” Furthermore, Echols’ disclosures of “a
temperature above ambient” (col. 5, ll. 16-17), and a temperature “at or near
the desired level” (col. 5, ll. 24-25), teach or suggest Appellant’s recitation
of claim 6 of “about 26 [degrees] C.”
Echols, at issue in all the rejections, discloses operating a resonator
and oscillating circuit 10 such that the temperature T inside of oven 22 is
controlled with oven control 28 and heater element 24 to “maintain T at or
near the desired level” (col. 5, ll. 24-25) to a temperature above ambient
(col. 5, ll. 13-25; see Fig. 1), and that a well-designed oven/system will hold
temperatures “to within a few millidegrees” (col. 2, ll. 30-32). Echols’ use
of a thermistor 30 in oven 22 with controller 28 and heater 24 (Fig. 1) is
equivalent to Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 10:29 to 11:3; Fig. 3) which
shows and describes using thermistor RT 25 in enclosure 21 with
temperature controller 24 and Peltier cells 23.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that Echols discloses open loop
control of the temperature of resonator 10, and that any relationship in
Echols between oven and resonator temperature still does not preclude the
environment from having open loop control of the resonator’s temperature
(Ans. 10). Appellant has provided no evidence on this record to support the
Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

7
assertion that Echols fails to provide open loop control of resonator
temperature, apart from mere conclusory statements. It is well settled that
mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported
by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s contentions that Echols fails to
teach or suggest the “loosely regulated temperature environment” and “open
loop control” recited in claim 1 (emphasis added) are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, and claims 2, 7, and 8 depending therefrom.
For the above reasons, we will also sustain the rejections of (i)
dependent claim 3 over the combination of Echols and Jones, and (ii) claims
5 and 9 over the combination of Echols and Satoh, whose merits are not
separately argued. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Regarding claim 6, we agree with the Examiner’s arguments and
findings at pages 7 and 10-11 of the Answer. Notably, Appellant does not
respond to the Examiner’s position that Echols is not precluded from having
open loop control as claimed, and Appellant has not countered the
Examiner’s position in the Reply Brief or otherwise rebutted the Examiner’s
findings. Since Appellant did not particularly point out errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as to claim 6 (Ans. 7 and 10-11), we will sustain the rejection of
claim 6 over the combination of Echols and Watanabe.

Appeal 2010-006690
Application 11/385,963

8
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-9 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-9 are 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

llw