Ex Parte Zanchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

12816841 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/816,841 06/16/2010
25235 7590 04/03/2018
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - Colorado Springs
TWO NORTH CASCADE A VENUE
SUITE 1300
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alfio Zanchi
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.
UTMC149 4257
EXAMINER
TRAN, NGUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
HLUSDocketing@hoganlovells.com
stephanie.mcdonough@hoganlovells.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALFIO ZANCHI
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFERR. GUPTA,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-12 of Application 12/816,841
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103(a) and 112. Final Act. (July 8, 2015) 2-11.
Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Cobham plc is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to voltage regulation circuits.
Spec. i-f 1. Voltage regulation circuits are taught to be "used to modify, tune,
and stabilize off-chip voltages towards usage for on-chip supply rails." Id.
i-f 2. The regulator circuit of the present application includes a voltage
regulator, an amplifier circuit that receives an error voltage from the voltage
regulator, and a "control circuit having an input coupled to the output of the
amplifier and an output coupled to the stability control input of the voltage
regulator, such that the regulator stability is maximized while the error
voltage is minimized." Id. i-f 11.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with certain
language in bold for emphasis:
1. A regulator circuit system comprising:
a standalone voltage regulator comprising a single active
feedback loop for providing a regulated output voltage at a
regulator output, the standalone voltage regulator having a first
voltage input for receiving an external reference voltage and a
second voltage input for receiving a feedback voltage, wherein
the difference between the external reference voltage and the
feedback voltage defines an error voltage, the standalone
voltage regulator having a current bias input for receiving an
adjustable bias current;
an amplifier circuit separate from the standalone voltage
regulator for receiving the error voltage of the standalone
voltage regulator and a non-switched constant bias current; and
a bias control circuit decoupled from a standalone voltage
regulator output current and separate from the amplifier
circuit, the bias control circuit coupled to the current bias input
of the standalone voltage regulator,
2
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
wherein the amplifier circuit is configured to amplify the error
voltage to provide either a modified reference voltage to the
bias control circuit or a correction current to the current bias
input of the standalone voltage regulator, without directly
driving the regulator output.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 2-3.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second
paragraph as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. Id.
at 3--4.
3. Claims 1-3 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Strik et al. (US 8,289,009 Bl, issued Oct. 16, 2012)
in view of Miyanaga et al. (US 2004/0004467 Al, published
Jan. 8, 2004). Id. at 4---6.
4. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Strik in view of Miyanaga, and further in view of Xi
(US 6,806,690 B2, issued Oct. 19, 2004). Id. at 6-7.
2 Claims 13-20 were canceled by Amendment dated Sept. 22, 2014.
Appellant seeks review only of claims 1-12. Appeal Br. 2-3. Accordingly,
we do not address the Examiner's putative rejection of claims 13-20.
3
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Strik
in view of Miyanaga and further in view of Zanchi et al.
(US 7,907,074 B2, issued Mar. 15, 2011). Id. at 7-8.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Strik
in view of Miyanaga and further in view of Hou et al.
(US 2009/0237048 Al, published Sept. 24, 2009). Id. at 8-9.
7. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Strik in view of Miyanaga and Xi and further in view of Tse
(US 6,144,249, issued Nov. 7, 2000). Id. at 9-10.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Strik in view of Miyanaga, Xi, and Tse, and further in view of
Zanchi et al. Id. at 10-11.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1.3 The Examiner rejected claim 1 as failing to comply
with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
determined that there is no disclosure in the application of "a bias control
circuit decoupled from a standalone voltage output current" as required by
claim 1. Id. at 3. In support, the Examiner found that "the only output
current IouT is generated by the F-to-I converter." Id.
3 In addition to the rejections listed above, Appellant also seeks review of
the Examiner's objections to Figures 3-5. Appeal Br. 3--4. An applicant
may seek review of such an objection only by petition; not by appeal.
37 C.F.R. §§ 1.83(c), 1.113(a), 1.181; seeMPEP § 706.01 [R-11.2013].
Accordingly, we do not review the propriety of such objections.
4
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
Appellant argues that the Specification teaches "a bias control circuit
coupled only to a current bias input of the standalone voltage regulator, and
which is not coupled to (i.e., is decoupled from) the current flowing through
any output driver transistor (such as 404, or 504) of the standalone voltage
regulator." Appeal Br. 4.
The foregoing is best understood by reference to Figure 4 of the
application, reproduced below.
Figure 4 "is a schematic diagram of a first embodiment of a bias-starving
circuit including a precision monitoring loop according to the present
invention." Spec. i-f 16. The "bias control circuit" required by claim 1 is
depicted as frequency-to-current (F-to-I) converter 414. See Spec. i-f 41. The
"standalone voltage output current" is the output of the drain of transistor
404 (the drain is the lower portion of the transistor 404 in Figure 4). See id.
i-fi-1 3 (regarding drain of driver transistor 104 of Figure 1) and 20 (regarding
drain of transistor 204 of Figure 2).
5
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
For an applicant to comply with the written description requirement,
the applicant's Specification must "'convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession
of the invention."' Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541
F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). "The knowledge of ordinary artisans
may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach
limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would
be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification." Rivera v. Int 'l
Trade Comm 'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citation
omitted).
The crux of the appeal of the rejection for failure to meet the written
description requirement concerns the scope of the term "coupled." The
Examiner construes the term "coupled" broadly to mean "electrically
coupled." Final Act. 13; Answer 3. Accordingly, the Examiner determines
that the bias control circuit ( 414) is electrically coupled to the transistor 404
through the amplifier 402. Id. As a consequence, the Examiner determines,
the Specification does not provide a written description of "a bias control
circuit decoupled from a standalone voltage output current."
In contrast, Appellant argues that "coupled" should be construed to
"include coupling through a wire or a low resistance or a contact, or a
reciprocal bipole or the like: but not a tracing through any arbitrary circuit
elements as advocated by the Examiner." Appeal Br. 4.
During examination, "the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification." In re ICON
Health &Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation
6
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
omitted). The broadest reasonable interpretation standard, however, "does
not give the Board an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim
without regard for the full claim language and the written description."
Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).
The Specification uses the term "coupled" a number of times. In the
context of Figure 4, the Specification provides as follows:
Operational amplifier 402 is coupled to a P-channel driver
transistor 404, gain-setting resistors Rs and RF, compensation
elements RcoMP [ 406] and Ceo MP [ 408], as well as load Z( s) and
CouT coupled to the output terminal V ouT- The reference voltage
V REF is coupled to the negative input of operational amplifier
402; as well as to the input of an additional voltage amplifier
circuit 410 including operational amplifier 412 and further
including gain-setting resistors R 1 and R2 . The negative input of
amplifier 412 is coupled to the VREF reference voltage through
resistor Rl.
Spec. i-f 25 (emphasis added). When considered in combination with
Figure 4, one sees that the term "coupled" is used to describe a direct
connection or through a resistor. The Specification does not include any use
of the term "coupled" to describe elements separated by amplifiers.
Although not controlling, we note that the Federal Circuit recently
considered the meaning of the term "coupled" in the context of another case.
There, the Court considered the limitation "digital to analog converter
coupled to the counter." In re Power Integrations, Inc., 2018 WL 1370551
(Fed. Cir. March 19, 2018). The Court rejected a construction of "coupled"
to mean 'join[ed] ... into a single ... circuit." Id. at *4. In so doing, the
Court held that,
7
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
[u]nder the board's overly expansive view of the term 'coupled,'
every element anywhere in the same circuit is potentially 'coupled' to
every other element in that circuit, no matter how far apart they are,
how many intervening components are between them, or whether they
are connected in series or in parallel.
Id. (citation omitted.). Rather than such broad interpretation, the Federal
Circuit construed "coupled" to require that "the counter - not some other
circuit element-[must] 'caus[e]' the converter to adjust the control input."
Id. at *6.
In view of the Specification and the claim language, we determine that
the Examiner's proposed broad construction of "coupled" to mean
"electrically coupled" is inconsistent with the Specification. Further, we
determine that Figure 4 of the application depicts a bias control circuit 414
that is not coupled to the output of transistor 404. Accordingly, Appellant
has shown reversible error in the Examiner's determination that the
Specification does not provide a written description of "a bias control circuit
decoupled from a standalone voltage output current."
Rejection 2. The Examiner additionally determined that the "bias
control circuit decoupled from a standalone voltage regulator output current"
was unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Final Act. 4. The
Examiner's determination regarding indefiniteness is predicated upon a
similar basis as the rejection of the basis of lack of written description. The
Examiner notes that there is no definition of the term "decoupled" and, for
purposes of examination, construes the term to mean "electrically decoupled
or the bias current source is controlled by the amplifier." Answer 4.
Appellant proposes that "[a] more reasonable reading of the 'coupled' term
8
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
would include coupling through a wire or a low resistance or a contact, or a
reciprocal bipole or the like: but not a tracing through any arbitrary circuit
elements." Appeal Br. 4. Appellant additionally asserts (without citation)
that MOS transistors are known to "decouple" the low impedance of certain
circuit nodes from the higher impedance of other circuit nodes. Id.
During prosecution, a claim is examined for compliance with
35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2 by determining whether the claim meets threshold
requirements of clarity and precision. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1268
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting MPEP § 2173.02). As above, the Specification
includes numerous uses of the term "coupled" to mean a direct connection or
a connection through a resistor. Such use suggests a more narrow meaning
of "coupled" than that adopted by the Examiner. Nor has the Examiner put
forward adequate reasoning in support of the determination of
indefiniteness. Accordingly, the term "decoupled" has not been shown to
fall short of threshold requirements of clarity and precision.
Rejection 3. The Examiner additionally rejected claims 1-3 and 6 as
obvious over Strik in view of Miyanaga. Final Act. 4---6. In support of such
rejection, the Examiner found that Strik teaches "a bias control circuit
decoupled from a standalone voltage regulator output current." Appeal Br. 8
(Claims App.).
Specifically, the Examiner found that Strik teaches "a bias control
circuit (i.e.[,] 130) decoupled (i.e.[,] electrically decoupled or the bias
current source 130 is controlled by the amplifier 128) from a standalone
voltage regulator (i.e.[,] 104, 106, 116, 120, 118, 122, 124) output current."
Final Act. 5.
9
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
Figure 1 of Strik is reproduced below for context.
FIG. 1
Figure 1 is described as a "low dropout (LDO) regulator with an ultra-low
quiescent current." Strik 1 :33-34.
Appellant argues that Strik does not teach a bias control circuit
decoupled from a voltage regulator output current because the bias current
source 130 is coupled to current output 120. Appeal Br. 5. In this regard,
Appellant contends as follows:
Strik does not disclose a bias control circuit 130 decoupled
from transistor 120, part of the standalone voltage regulator per
the Examiner's own interpretation, since 130 is coupled to 128
and to 120 (labeled, as BIAS2 and BIAS 1 respectively, in Fig. I
to Strik). Since 130 is coupled to 120 which is part of the
standalone voltage regulator, the bias control circuit 130 is not
decoupled from the voltage regulator.
Appeal Br. 5---6.
10
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
The Examiner does not specifically contest Appellant's assertion that
bias control circuit 130 is coupled to the output current of sense transistor
120. Final Act. 13. Rather, the Examiner determines that the bias control
circuit 130 is not coupled to the output of power transistor 118. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that "the bias control circuit in
Strik is in fact coupled to the regulator output current since current BIAS 1
derived from the drain current of transistor 120 is either the same or a
proportional representative of the regulator output current, flowing to the
output VOUT through device 118." Reply Br. 5.
Appellant's assertion that the output of sense transistor 120 is the
same as or similar to the output of power transistor 118 is insufficient to
rebut the Examiner's finding that the output of power transistor 118 is not
coupled to the bias control circuit. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown
error in this regard.
Rejections 4--8. The Examiner additionally rejected claims 4, 5, and
7-12 as obvious over Strik in view of Miyanaga and other references as
listed above. Final Act. 6-11. Appellant presents the same arguments in
support of the appeal of these rejections as presented above in regard to
claims 1-3 and 6. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant does not present argument
relating to any prior art reference other than Strik. See Appeal Br. 6
("Miyanaga is not deemed to supply the missing teachings on this point.").
These arguments are not found persuasive for the same reasons articulated
with regard to claims 1-3 and 6.
11
Appeal2016-006867
Application 12/816,841
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 1 for failure to comply with the written
description requirement is reversed. The rejection of claim 1 for failure to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention
(indefiniteness) is reversed. The rejections of claims 1-12 as obvious 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).
AFFIRMED
12