Yonggang Chen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

13244429 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
13/244,429 09/24/2011 Yonggang Chen IDT-P2786 8684
141828 7590 09/23/2019
HEIMLICH LAW
5952 DIAL WAY
SAN JOSE, CA 95129
EXAMINER
CHEN, PATRICK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
alanheimlich@heimlichlaw.com
sroberts@peloquinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YONGGANG CHEN, SHRIRAM KULKARNI,
and PRASHANT SHAMARAO
____________

Appeal 2017-009361
Application 13/244,429
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellant1 requests rehearing of the April 9, 2019, Decision on
Appeal (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 1–16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and reversed the rejections of claims 1–16 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. We have
reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellant’s arguments in their Request
for rehearing (Req. Reh’g) but, for the reasons given below, we are not

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Integrated
Device Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-009361
Application 13/244,429

2
persuaded any points were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in
our Decision.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Board erred in affirming the rejection of
claims 1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Guo2 and
Miske3 by failing to consider the limitation of switching at the same time, as
required in claims 1 and 2, whereas “Miske depending on the state of EN
(0 or 1) connects things at different times.” Req. Reh’g 3. Appellant
asserts the following:
The circuits of Guo and Miske do not exist in two
different states at the same time. That is, regardless of how they
are combined and regardless of how they switch they are
deterministic. Being deterministic means that however they
switch in combination is predictable and most importantly
repeatable. That is, if the combination “switches” at the same
time it will repeat that when given the same inputs. Likewise,
if the combination “switches” at different times it will repeat
that when given the same inputs. Now since the Guo-Miske
combination, as noted by the Board (Decision 13) uses the EN
signal, this can be either high or low (i.e. it’s digital and
binary). That is, when EN=0 there is one set of “switching”
conditions, and when EN=1 there is as second set of
“switching” conditions. That is regardless of the connections
and delay paths the switching will be consistent for EN=0 and
EN=1 and is repeatable for each.
Id. (underlining omitted). Additionally, Appellant argues “[c]laims 1 and 2
switch at the same (first) time, and claims 3-6 at the same (second) time.
Therefore, this is not consistent with the Board’s own acknowledgement

2 Guo (US 7,924,085 B2; iss. Apr. 12, 2011).
3 Miske (US 7,095,266 B2; iss. Aug. 22, 2006).
Appeal 2017-009361
Application 13/244,429

3
of different times as shown by Miske. This is exemplified by claims 8 and
9 which are at different times.” Id. (underlining omitted).
First, our reliance on Figure 2A of Miske was to show the bias scheme
for the switches nF1–nF4, rather than the sequence of switching, which is
recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Decision 10–11. As further explained in our
Decision, the complete circuit shown in Figure 5 of Miske provides the
method of switching “a gate of an n-type field effect transistor in a
transmission gate” and “a body of said n-type field effect transistor in said
transmission gate” recited in claim 1.
Notably, Appellant’s “SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
MATTER” describes claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 by referring to the same set of
figures and paragraphs, i.e., Figures 5(a)–5(d), ¶¶ 21–29, for switching the
n-type or p-type field effect transistors at the same time or at different times.
See Appeal Br. 6–10. Appellant’s Figure 5 Similarly shows switching of the
transistor gate from ON to OFF state by connecting the gate to VDD or
GND potential, which similar to the switching scheme in Miske, takes place
at different times. See Spec. ¶¶ 25–26; Miske 3:33–45.
Second, Appellant’s argument that “Miske depending on the state of
EN (0 or 1) connects things at different times,” lacks sufficient specificity
and fails to identify the specific differences between the claims and the cited
portions of Miske. See Req. Reh’g 3. In fact, Appellant has not described
how switching the gate and body of the n-type field effect transistor in
Miske takes place at different times whether EN=0 or EN=1, whereas our
Decision clearly explained that in each of the two states of EN signal, the
gate and the body are switched from ground to VDD at the same time. See
Decision 13. Similarly, our Decision explained that the limitation of claim 8
Appeal 2017-009361
Application 13/244,429

4
which depends from claim 7, when interpreted as broadly as reasonable and
consistent with the Specification, is met by the disclosure of Miske that
includes both ON and OFF states of the signal recited in claim 7. See
Decision 12–13. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that our Decision did not consider
the teachings of Miske or misapprehended Appellant’s argument alleging
that the combination of Guo and Miske fails to teach or suggest the recited
features in affirming the rejection of claims 1–16.

DECISION
For the reasons stated above, Appellant has not persuaded us that we
misapprehended or overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision.
We have reconsidered our Decision dated April 9, 2019, but we deny
Appellant’s request to make any changes therein.
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.
§ 41.50(f).

REHEARING DENIED