Ex Parte Ngo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2012

11204412 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HUNG C. NGO, CHING-TE CHUANG, KEUNWOO KIM, JENTE B. KAUNG and KEVIN J. NOWKA ____________________ Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11,13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, and 24 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to a ring oscillator formed using inverting stages configured from asymmetrical dual gated FET (ADG-FET) devices. (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A. voltage controlled ring oscillator (VCO) comprising a first group of an odd number N inverting stages coupled in series with at least one of the N inverting stages having first and second logic inputs and an intermediate logic output and a first asymmetrical dual gated FET (ADG-FET) having a front gate coupled to the first logic input, a drain terminal supplying drive current for the intermediate logic output, a back gate coupled to a first control voltage and a source terminal coupled to receive current from a first voltage potential of a power supply, wherein a level of the drive current is varied in response to the first control voltage to vary a frequency of the VCO; and wherein the first logic input is coupled to a final logic output of another of the N inverting stages. References Yamazaki US 6,462,723 B1 Oct. 8, 2002 Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 3 Nowak US 6,610,576 B2 Aug. 26, 2003 Abrosimov US 2006/0001496 A1 Jan. 5, 2006 Liu US 7,205,854 B2 Apr. 17, 2007 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak. (2) Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Yamazaki, Nowak, and Abrosimov. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak because the references, taken alone or in proper combination do not teach or suggest “wherein the first logic input is coupled to a final logic output of another of the N inverting stages,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11). Specifically, Appellants contend Liu teaches the output of a ring oscillator being connected only to the sources or drains of PFETs and NFETS or to a multiplexer, but not coupling a final logical output to a first Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 4 logical input or to the front or back gate of an asymmetrical dual-gate field effect transistor (id.). In addition, Appellants contend even though Nowak discloses asymmetrical dual gated FETs, these FETs are not connected to other N-inverting stages within an oscillator (id.). Appellants further argue the Examiner’s reasoning for modifying is insufficient as the Examiner has not provided any rational underpinning for the combination (App. Br. 12). According to Appellants, the Examiner has relied upon hindsight bias (id.). Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak teaches or suggests “wherein the first logic input is coupled to a final logic output of another of the N inverting stages” as recited in claim 1? Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, as outlined infra, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 13 for emphasis. We are not persuaded by any of Appellants’ arguments that attack the references separately, because the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is based upon the combination of Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak. We note that each Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 5 reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.). Indeed, Appellants have not shown that incorporating Yamazaki’s NAND gate in place of Liu’s NAND gate, and using Nowak’s dual gated asymmetrical transistor would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Nor have Appellants shown that incorporating the voltage controlled ring oscillator of Liu into a phase locked loop would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisan. As Appellants have presented no convincing arguments that modifying the system of Liu to incorporate the teachings and suggestions of Yamazaki and Nowak was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted), we find both of these enhancements would have been obvious. See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). As clarified in KSR, the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Thus, we find the combination teaches or at least suggests “wherein the first logic input is coupled to a final logic output of another of the N inverting stages,” as recited in claims 1 and 13; and a phase locked loop circuit as recited in claim 13. Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 6 In addition, we find the Examiner has articulated a motivation with a rational underpinning for the combination (Ans. 4-8). Appellants have not presented sufficient argument or evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings of motivation or that the combination used impermissible hindsight. Therefore, we are not convinced the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak. Appellants did not separately argue claims 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28 (App. Br. 14-15) and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 1 and claims 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 9 and 21 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Liu, Yamazaki, Nowak, and Abrosimov based on the arguments set forth for claims 1 and 13 (App. Br. 16-17). As set forth above with respect to ISSUE 1, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, it follows the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Liu, Yamazaki, Nowak, and Abrosimov teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 9 and 21. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 21 under Appeal 2010-006910 Application 11/204,412 7 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Liu, Yamazaki, Nowak, and Abrosimov. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Yamazaki, and Nowak is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Yamazaki, Nowak, and Abrosimov 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) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD