Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021001658 (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. 14/667,756 03/25/2015 Vijay Krishnamurthy TI-74014 5466 23494 7590 03/11/2022 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2146 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VIJAY KRISHNAMURTHY, TIKNO HARJONO, and VIOLA SCHAFFER ____________ Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-22, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 31-35 (Claims App.).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2-6 and 12-15 are not before us, as they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “simulating fluxgate magnetic sensors and other magnetic circuit components.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, [i]mproved magnetic component models, circuit simulation systems and methods are presented for simulating operation of a modeled magnetic circuit component in which user input defines magnetically susceptible core geometry of the modeled magnetic circuit component, a core model simulates operation of the magnetically susceptible core at least partially according to the geometry of the magnetically susceptible core, and one or more coil models simulate operation of coils wound around the magnetically susceptible core to provide a scalable model with geometry adjustable permeability for fluxgate magnetic sensors, transformers, inductors or other modeled components. Abstr. Independent claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A user adjustable magnetic component model stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium and executed by a processor to simulate operation of a modeled magnetic circuit component in a modeled electrical circuit, the magnetic component model comprising: a set of predetermined connection inputs that include simulated circuit connections to the modeled magnetic circuit component; a model user input including a user configurable parameter having a geometry aspect of a magnetically susceptible core of the modeled magnetic circuit component, the magnetically susceptible core including two core portions; a core model executed by the processor to simulate operation of the magnetically susceptible core of the modeled magnetic circuit component at least partially according to the geometry aspect of the magnetically susceptible core; and Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 3 a coil model executed by the processor to simulate operation of a coil wound at least partially around the magnetically susceptible core of the modeled magnetic circuit component. Appeal Br. 31 (Claims Appendix). References and Rejection3 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 7, 9-11, 16, 18-22 103 Peter R. Wilson et al., Simulation of Magnetic Component Models in Electric Circuits Including Dynamic Thermal Effects, 17 IEEE Transactions on Power Elecs. 55-65 (2002) (“Wilson”); Maekawa (US 2006/0132118 A1, published June 22, 2006) ANALYSIS Obviousness We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but find such arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June 9, 2020 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated July 16, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Oct. 30, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 4 I Appellant contends Wilson does no teach “a model user input including a user configurable parameter having a geometry aspect of a magnetically susceptible core of the modeled magnetic circuit component,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11-13. In particular, Appellant contends: Wilson et al. does not teach a user configurable parameter having a geometry aspect. The cited (page 4 of the Office Action) “page 55-56, fig. 2-4” of Wilson et al. contains no mention of a user input (320 of FIG. 3 and paragraph 0042 of the Appellant’s Specification) including a user configurable parameter (paragraphs 0041-0042 of the Appellant’s Specification) having a geometry aspect (L, W, area, etc. of paragraph 0042 of the Appellant’s Specification). Instead, Wilson . . . teaches “modifying the model parameters dynamically depending on the temperature” (cited page 56). As stated on pages 11-12 of the Amendment dated April 9, 2019, “pages 55 and 56 describes modeling the relationship between power switching devices and thermal components, and describes an extended nonlinear core model, in which model parameters are dynamically modified depending on the temperature of the magnetic materials, where the temperature is calculated dynamically from a formal network representing the thermal behavior of the magnetic core. With respect to the model of independent claim 1, however, pages 55-56 and Figs. 2-4 of Wilson do not disclose or suggest a user configurable parameter having a geometry aspect of a magnetically susceptible core as claimed.” Appeal Br. 11-12. We disagree with Appellant. In the Final Action, the Examiner cites Wilson’s Figures 1-4 and pages 55-56 for teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 3-4. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner further explains: Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 5 Wilson . . . clearly provides for creating an electromagnetic core model (see left column of page 56), in which fig. 1 shows the core model having dimension and that the configuration parameters having geometric aspect such as length, width, etc ... which is clearly shown in the dimension of the core of fig. 1 and that user creating such would have to provide said configuration parameters prior to creation of the core model. Ans. 4. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s further explanation and, therefore, fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). II Appellant contends Wilson does no teach “the magnetically susceptible core including two core portions,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellant contends: Wilson et al. does not teach that the magnetically susceptible core includes two core portions (Section C - pages 56-58). The Appellant respectfully traverses the statement in the Office Action (page 3) that “Wilson clearly provides the two core portions”. The Appellant submits that Wilson et al. instead teaches “a Philips TN10-3F3 toroid core” that does not have two core portions (Section II.A on page 60 and Section B on page 63; FIGS. 13-14 and 25; note also that the cited FIG. 1 has “two windings and a core model” (emphasis added) per Section II.A on page 56). Therefore, Wilson et al. does not teach that the magnetically susceptible core includes two core portions. This defect is not cured by combining Wilson et al. with Maekawa et al. (as asserted in the Office Action), as explained infra. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 6 We disagree with Appellant. It is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellant does not contend the Specification has assigned a special meaning to the claimed “two core portions.” Nor does Appellant cite the Specification to illustrate what the claimed “two core portions” mean. Turning to the Examiner’s findings, the Examiner cites Wilson and finds: wherein the magnetically susceptible core including two core portions (see the primary and secondary portions of the model of fig.1 in which primary and secondary coil wound around respective core portions). Final Act. 4. Appellant’s claims is a core model having two core portions which Wilson also provides (see the two core portions “primary and secondary portions” of the core model of fig. 1 which advantageously used to provide primary and secondary windings around the respective core portions. Ans. 4. Appellant has not shown the Examiner’s finding that Wilson’s Figure 1 teaches or suggests “the magnetically susceptible core including two core portions” is incorrect. In particular, that finding is consistent with the Specification, which similarly shows two portions of a core. See Spec., Fig. 2. The Examiner’s finding is also confirmed by the Wilson portion Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 7 cited by Appellant (Appeal Br. 13), which describes “winding primary and secondary coils [corresponding to two core portions] on a Philips TN10-3F3 toroid core.” Wilson p. 60, Section III A. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 13), Wilson’s description that “Fig. 1 shows a transformer modeled using two windings and a core model” (Wilson p. 56, Section II A) is consistent with the Examiner’s finding, as Wilson’s “two windings and a core model” collectively teach the claimed “magnetically susceptible core.” III Appellant argues “one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine a teaching of a ‘process of determining the distribution of an antenna’ (Maekawa et al. paragraph 0088) with teachings of ‘modeling magnetic components for use in circuit simulation’ (page 56 of Wilson et al.).” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the Examiner’s proposed combination, which does not include Maekawa’s “process of determining the distribution of an antenna” (Appeal Br. 13 (citing Wilson’s page 56)). Appellant’s argument is also unpersuasive because Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to support the argument. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”). Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 8 Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 20 for similar reasons. Dependent Claims 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 Regarding dependent claim 7, Appellant argues: Claim 7 further specifies that the core model is executable by the processor to simulate operation of the magnetically susceptible core by computing an effective permeability of the magnetically susceptible core at least partially according to the geometry aspect of the magnetically susceptible core, and to simulate a magnetic flux density versus magnetic field characteristic curve (B-H curve) linear-to-saturation region transition of the magnetically susceptible core at least partially according to the geometry aspect of the magnetically susceptible core. Wilson et al. does not teach computing an effective permeability of the magnetically susceptible core at least partially according to the geometry aspect of the magnetically susceptible core. Instead, Wilson et al. teaches “modifying the model parameters dynamically depending on the temperature” (cited page 56). Appeal Br. 14-15. We disagree. Appellant repeatedly cites the same single sentence from Wilson’s page 56 for arguing many claims, and that kind of argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings, which cites Wilson’s “page 57 right column” (Final Act. 5)-not that single sentence from page 56-for teaching the disputed limitation. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 9 Regarding dependent claim 16, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to dependent claim 7, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16. Regarding claims 9, 10, 18, and 19, Appellant argues each claim is allowable because of the additionally recited feature in that claim. See Appeal Br. 15-17, 22-24. However, Appellant’s assertions are unpersuasive because Appellant fails to provide adequate analysis about the additionally recited feature in each of claims 9, 10, 18, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellant’s remaining arguments are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1, which are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 18, and 19. Regarding dependent claims 21, Appellant argues: Claim 21 further specifies that the geometry aspect of the user configurable parameter of the model user input includes a number of coils and a coil width or spacing parameter. Wilson et al. does not teach that the geometry aspect of the user configurable parameter of the model user input includes a number of coils and a coil width or spacing parameter. Instead, Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 10 Wilson et al. teaches “modifying the model parameters dynamically depending on the temperature” (cited page 56). Appeal Br. 27-28. Again, Appellant repeatedly cites the same single sentence from Wilson’s page 56 for arguing many claims, and that kind of argument is unpersuasive because it is not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings, which cites Wilson’s “page 60 lower right column” (Final Act. 5)-not that single sentence from page 56-for teaching the disputed limitation. The Examiner also provides explanation as to why the cited Wilson portion teaches claim 21 (Final Act. 5), and Appellant does not directly dispute that explanation. Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 21. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Regarding dependent claim 22, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to dependent claim 21, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 22. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 9-11, 16, 18-22 103 Wilson, Maekawa 1, 7, 9-11, 16, 18-22 Appeal 2021-001658 Application 14/667,756 11 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED