Synopsys, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021001130 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/806,502 07/22/2015 Jamil Kawa SYN-2656 (2656US01) 1048 35273 7590 03/11/2022 Synopsys, Inc. c/o BEVER, HOFFMAN & HARMS, LLP Attn: Carrie Reddick, Office Manager 18486 Spring Valley Drive Grass Valley, CA 95945 EXAMINER CHANG, ERIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2186 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 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): creddick@beverlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMIL KAWA and THU NGUYEN Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 Technology Center 2100 Before JENNIFER S. BISK, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 13, and 16-18.3 Claim 2 has been 1 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Specification filed July 22, 2015 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed September 23, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed March 23, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 7, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed December 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Synopsys, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. 3 The Examiner withdraws the rejections for claims 3-5, 14, and 15. Ans. 7. Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 2 canceled and claims 3-12, 14, and 15 have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a method and structure for saving energy in a battery powered electronic device, without degrading the operating performance of the electronic device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 13. A battery powered device, comprising internal circuitry; a first internal voltage supply node coupled to the internal circuitry, wherein the first internal voltage supply node supplies power to the internal circuitry during both an idle state and a non-idle state of the battery powered device; a first transistor configured to turn on and apply a first supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the non-idle state; and a second transistor having a first threshold voltage, wherein the second transistor is configured to apply a first idle supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the idle state, wherein the first idle supply voltage differs from the first supply voltage by the first threshold voltage. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ch’ng US 8,699,291 B1 Apr. 15, 2014 Shedge “A CMOS Source Follower and Super Source Follower,” Proc. of Int. Conf. on Advances in Electrical & Electronics 2012 REJECTIONS Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ch’ng. Final Act. 3-4, 8-9. Claims 1, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ch’ng and Shedge. Id. at 4-7. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the corresponding arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Claim 13 The Examiner rejects independent claim 13 as obvious over Ch’ng. Final Act. 3-4. “a first transistor configured to turn on and apply a first supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the non-idle state” For claim 13’s limitation “a first transistor configured to turn on and apply a first supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the non-idle state,” the Examiner relies on Ch’ng’s transistor 204 as disclosing the recited “first transistor.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ch’ng 2:17-25). The Examiner concedes that Ch’ng “does not teach that the first Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 4 transistor is configured to turn on to apply said first supply voltage.” Id. at 4. However, the Examiner asserts that “whether a transistor is turned on or off depends on the type of transistor used (i.e. n or p channel transistor), as is well known in the art.” Id. (citing Ch’ng 4:16-35).4 The Examiner explains that “Ch’ng provides an exemplary embodiment . . . wherein the first transistor 204 is a P-channel transistor that may be turned on and off by clock signal CLK.” Ans. 8 (citing Ch’ng 4:16-35). The Examiner adds that Ch’ng describes, as a non-limiting example, that “because the first transistor 204 is a P-channel transistor, it may be turned on by a low logic level of clock signal CLK during an idle state [col. 4, lines 55-63], and turned off by a high logic level of clock signal CLK during a non-idle state [col. 5, lines 14-25].” Id. at 9, 10 (citing Ch’ng 3:55-64). According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of Ch’ng may use negative or positive logic to turn on or off a transistor, depending on the type of transistor used and the first transistor would likewise be turned on or off to apply said first voltage, substantially as claimed.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 9-10. Appellant argues that because Ch’ng “teach[es] that the first transistor 204 must be turned off during the active (non-idle) state,” it teaches away from being “configured to turn on and apply a first supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the non-idle state” as recited by claim 13. Appeal Br. 12-13. We do not agree that Ch’ng teaches away from the recited claim. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Ch’ng’s exemplary embodiment with transistor 204 turned off during a non-idle state is “meant 4 The Examiner actually refers to “Ch’[n]g col. 4, lines 16-15,” but from the context, we determine this to be a typo. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 5 to be illustrative and not limiting.” Ch’ng 3:55-58. Appellant also argues that even if transistor 204 is replaced with an n- channel transistor “Ch’ng teaches that the first transistor is turned off during the active (non-idle) state.” Appeal Br. 13. This conclusory statement, however is not supported with any citations to Ch’ng or any other evidence of record. Id. It is well settled that mere attorney 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); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2145 (9th ed. Nov. 2015) (“Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection.”). In the Answer, Appellant reiterates this statement, but similarly does not provide citation to any supporting evidence. See Reply Br. 2-3. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Ch’ng discloses that “transistor 204 may be turned on by the logic low level of clock signal CLK” as a non-limiting example. Ch’ng 4:55-63; see also Fig. 4. Because Appellant does not provide any evidence supporting its position, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace transistor 204 with an n-channel transistor and such substitution would satisfy claim 13’s limitation “a first transistor configured to turn on and apply a first supply voltage to the first internal voltage supply node during the non-idle state.” “wherein the first idle supply voltage differs from the first supply voltage by the first threshold voltage” For claim 13’s limitation “wherein the first idle supply voltage differs Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 6 from the first supply voltage by the first threshold voltage,” the Examiner explains that “the value of >VCC is 2xVCC.” Final Act. 3 (citing Ch’ng 5:26-35). According to the Examiner, “Ch’ng teaches the threshold voltages of the transistors for logic high [transistors are turned on/off at a logic high, for example, CLK and EN_SLEEP: col. 4, lines 39-63], and that the logic high level is VCC [col. 6, lines 55-66]. . . . Thus, the threshold voltage of transistor 202 is VCC, and the non-idle voltage [>VCC] is different from the VCC supply voltage by the amount of VCC.” Ans. 10-11 (citing Fig. 4) (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts that Ch’ng does “not teach that the threshold voltage to trigger transistor 202 is Vcc,” but instead that “when the gate-to-source voltage of transistor 202 is equal to VCC, the transistor 202 is fully turned on, such that there is no voltage drop across the source and drain of this transistor 202.” Appeal Br. 15. Based on this assertion, Appellant argues that Ch’ng does not teach “wherein the first idle supply voltage differs from the first supply voltage by the first threshold voltage” as claimed. Id. at 14. Again, this conclusion is not supported by citations to evidence in the record. Id. In the Answer, Appellant elaborates on this assertion and points to the Specification, stating “[i]t is well established that the threshold voltage of a transistor is the voltage at which conduction begins to occur, and not the voltage required to fully turn on the transistor.” Ans. 4-6 (citing Spec. Fig. 2, ¶¶ 15, 17). This argument relying on the Specification, however, is new to the Reply Brief and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 7 unless good cause is shown.”). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Ch’ng’s disclosure that “[i]n an exemplary embodiment, the voltage level stored by capacitor 220 of FIG. 3A during idle mode may be used to boost the voltage level at gate of transistor 102 to approximately twice the voltage level of VCC.” Ch’ng 6:33-37; see also Fig. 4. The Examiner finds VCC to be the claimed threshold voltage because VCC is the voltage at which the transistors are turned on or turned off. Ans. 10-11. Appellant argues that Ch’ng’s VCC is not “the” threshold voltage because Ch’ng’s VCC “fully” turns on the transistor, whereas “the threshold voltage of a transistor is the voltage at which conduction begins to occur,” also described as “triggered.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 4-6. However, Appellant does not provide support or sufficient reasoning to explain why Ch’ng’s VCC “fully” turns on the transistor, in the absence of any description in Ch’ng to that effect. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that VCC is a threshold voltage because “the threshold voltage to trigger transistor 202 is VCC.” Ans. 10. Because Appellant does not provide any evidence supporting its position, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Ch’ng teaches “wherein the first idle supply voltage differs from the first supply voltage by the first threshold voltage” as claimed. Claims 1 and 16-18 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 and dependent claims 16- 18 as obvious over the combination of Ch’ng and Shedge. Final Act. 4-7. Appellant relies on the same arguments made regarding claim 13, adding that Shedge does not remedy the argued deficiencies over Ch’ng. Appeal Br. 16, 18. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of error by these arguments. Appeal 2021-001130 Application 14/806,502 8 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 16-18 103 Ch’ng and Shedge 1, 16-18 13 103 Ch’ng 13 Overall Outcome 1, 13, 16-18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED