Ex Parte Shin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2014

12077894 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOUNG JOON SHIN
____________

Appeal 2012-006010
Application 12/077,894
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006010
Application 12/077,894

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 12 as
unpatentable over Sohn (US 7,135,900 B2, patented Nov. 14, 2006) in view
of Bisanti et al. (US 6,600,351 B2, patented Jul. 29, 2003) and of dependent
claims 2-11 and 13-20 as unpatentable over these references alone or in
combination with additional prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.

We REVERSE.

Appellant claims a phase locked loop 300 comprising a main charge
pump 322 feeding a first loop filter 336, an auxiliary charge pump 324
feeding a second input of the loop filter wherein the auxiliary charge pump
is smaller than the main charge pump, and an on-chip stabilizing capacitor
330, the loop filter providing a regulating voltage for an oscillator 314
(independent claim 1, Fig. 3; see also independent claim 12).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
Claim 1: A phase locked loop comprising:
a main charge pump driven by a phase error signal and feeding a first
input of a loop filter;
an auxiliary charge pump driven by said phase error signal and
feeding a second input of said loop filter, said auxiliary charge pump being
smaller than said main charge pump;
an on-chip stabilizing capacitor fed by said auxiliary charge pump and
coupled to said second input of said loop filter;
said loop filter providing a regulating voltage for regulating a
frequency of a voltage controlled oscillator in said phase locked loop.
Appeal 2012-006010
Application 12/077,894

3
The pivotal issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner correctly
finds that auxiliary charge pump 64 is smaller than main charge pump 66 in
the Figure 11 phase locked loop of Sohn as required by Appellant's
independent claims (see, e.g., Ans. 4-5 citing Sohn Figure 13A_1 as
evidence for the size finding).
For the reasons given by Appellant, the Examiner's finding is not
supported by, and in fact is inconsistent with, the Figure 13A_1 disclosure of
Sohn (App. Br. 9-10). As correctly argued by Appellant, this finding is
contrary to Sohn's disclosure in column 20 that Figure 13A_1 shows the
output of charge pump 64 in comparison with the combined output of charge
pumps 66 and 70 which comparison evinces that all of Sohn's pumps are of
substantially similar size (id. at 10).

In response, the Examiner states that "[c]urrent 1p is the current
source in the smaller charge pump 64, and current 1c is the current source in
the main charge pump 66" (Ans. 11). The Examiner then determines by
mathematical logic that "1c=2(1p)" (id.).1

The Examiner's response fails to address the above argument with
meaningful specificity. Concomitant with this failure is the Examiner's error
in stating that "current 1c is the current source in the main charge pump 66"
(id.). Appellant correctly explains that 1c is equal to the combined current

1 We observe that the Examiner's response includes citations to certain
disclosures in columns 17 and 19 of Sohn (id. at 10). However, these
disclosures do not involve charge pump 64 and therefore do not support the
Examiner's finding that pump 64 is smaller than pump 66.
Appeal 2012-006010
Application 12/077,894

4
signal from charge pumps 66 and 70 (Reply Br. 5-6 quoting the paragraph
bridging columns 19 and 20 of Sohn).

The record before us does not support and in fact contradicts the
Examiner's finding that Sohn's auxiliary charge pump 64 is smaller than
main charge pump 66 as required by the independent claims on appeal.
Accordingly, the above rejections are not sustained.

The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc