Yonggang Chen et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 23, 201913244429 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation