Ex Parte Venkatraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 2016

13560371 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/560,371 07/27/2012 57299 7590 05/18/2016 Kathy Manke A vago Technologies Limited 4380 Ziegler Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ramnath Venkatraman UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Ll2-0851US1 8910 EXAMINER SKIBINSKI, THOMAS S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2842 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): kathy.manke@broadcom.com patent.info@broadcom.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) ~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMNATH VENKATRAMAN, PRASAD SUBBARAO, and RUGGERO CASTAGNETTI Appeal2014-006890 Application 13/560,371 Technology Center 2800 Before: JEFFREYS. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to "integrated circuits (ICs) and, more specifically, to ICs employing adaptive voltage scaling (A VS)." Spec. Appeal2014-006890 Application 13/560,371 i11. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with individual clause lettering added): 1. A critical path monitor, comprising: [a] an edge detector configured to produce a thermometer output over a plurality of clock cycles; and [b] a min_max recorder, coupled to said edge detector and configured to record minimum and maximum values of said thermometer output during a polling interval. References and Re} ections Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Carpenter (US 8,405,413 B2; Mar. 26, 2013). Final Act. 2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter and Moore (US 2011/0080202 Al; Apr. 7, 2011). Final Act. 4. Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter. Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-12; Advisory Act.; Ans. 11-21) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Carpenter discloses all limitations of claim 1. Regarding clause [a], Appellants contend the recited "'[a]n' edge detector in plain English is explicitly a single edge detector ... Carpenter, on the other hand[,] clearly teaches two edge detectors" (Reply 2 Appeal2014-006890 Application 13/560,371 Br. 2; see also App. Br. 6) and, in Carpenter, "the output of edge detectors 34A-34B are only valid for just one clock cycle since they are reset, as shown in Fig. 4, prior to the next clock cycle ... [which] prevents producing an output 'over a plurality of clock cycles' as recited" (App Br. 7). Appellants additionally argue the Examiner erred in finding Carpenter discloses the limitations recited in clause [b] of claim 1, as 'just because [Carpenter's] data analysis circuit 39 may record all values of the comparator 35, the data analysis circuit 39 does not determine both a maximum and a minimum of the values to calculate the moving average." Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, because Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. We address each clause of claim 1, as follows. Clause [a] Claim 1 recites a "critical path monitor, comprising: an edge detector configured to produce a thermometer output over a plurality of clock cycles." We note claim 1 recites the transitional term "comprising," which the Examiner correctly finds "does not limit the claim to a single edge detector" 1; thus, the recited "an edge detector" does not preclude Carpenter's disclosure of two edge detectors, particularly in view of Carpenter's "single delay path" embodiments. Ans. 12-13 (citing Carpenter 4:7-24). Additionally, Carpenter discloses processing over multiple clock pulses, thus each of Carpenter's edge detectors will output "over a plurality 1 "Comprising" is an open-ended term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim. See Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 3 Appeal2014-006890 Application 13/560,371 of clock cycles." See Ans. 13-14; Carpenter Fig. 6 (lclk line); see also Spec. i-f 43 (describing output monitored over a plurality of clock cycles). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Carpenter discloses "an edge detector," configured as recited in clause [a]. See Final Act. 2. Clause [b] Regarding clause [b ], we note claim 1 does not recite determine both values, but rather that the values are recorded. Carpenter discloses the "data analysis circuit 39 performs statistical calculations on an output of comparator 35 to provide data which can reflect, but need not be limited to, a minimum, maximum, or moving average of the output of comparator." Carpenter 4:35-38. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Carpenter discloses the limitations of clause [b ], because Carpenter's system will necessarily record the minimum and maximum values in order to calculate the disclosed average. See Ans. 15. 2 Additional Reply Brief Arguments We also note Appellants present new arguments in the Reply Brief regarding the "thermometer output" (see Reply Br. 4--5) and the "polling interval" (see Reply Br. 5). These arguments are entitled to no consideration because they were not presented for the first time in the opening brief. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2); see also Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply brief that could have been raised in the opening 2 Additionally, we agree with The Examiner that "Carpenter clearly implies by including 'need not be limited to' that the data analysis circuit can record both the minimum and maximum." Final Act. 12; see also Reply Br. 5---6. Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the stated "need not be limited to" phrase shows Carpenter's "or" conjunction is an inclusive-or. 4 Appeal2014-006890 Application 13/560,371 brief is waived); accord E'x parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal). CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 4, 8, and 11, which Appellants do not separately argue with particularity. See App. Br. 9. Appellants advance no further substantive argument on independent claim 15, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-21. See App. Br. 10-12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5