Ex Parte ChenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612258594 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/258,594 10/27/2008 109673 7590 08/02/2016 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 3100 Interstate North Circle Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Nan-Jang CHEN 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. 251314-5651 9359 EXAMINER SEMENENKO, YURIY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2848 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): uspatents@mqrlaw.com dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAN-JANG CHEN Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL Y FRANKLIN, JULIA HEANEY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY Administrative Patent Judges. HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-10 and 15-24 of Application 12/258,594. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MediaTek Inc. Br. 2. Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to printed circuit board (PCB) routing, and in particular, routing of power, signal and ground traces within a PCB in order to provide good signal quality and reduce electromagnetic interference. Spec. iii! 4-5. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 1. A printed circuit board, comprising: a substrate having a top surface and a bottom surface; a ground plane on the bottom surface; an electronic device; a signal trace on the top surface along a first direction; a first and a second power planes isolated from each other on the top surface adjacent to opposite sides of the signal trace, respectively, wherein at least one of the first and second power planes is directly connected to the electronic device on the top surface of the substrate; and a conductive connection along a second direction coupled to the two power planes, across the signal trace without electrically connecting to the signal trace, wherein the signal trace doesn't pass over any split of the ground plane, wherein a solder mask layer is between the electronic device and the substrate. REFERENCES The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Juskey US 6,356,453 B 1 Mar. 12, 2002 (hereinafter "Juskey") Kelly et al. US 2003/0053302 Al Mar. 20, 2003 (hereinafter "Kelly") Conner et al. US 7,375,978 B2 May 20, 2008 (hereinafter "Conner") 2 Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 Leipold US 2009/0168387 Al Jul. 2, 2009 (hereinafter "Leipold") Lynch US 2009/0165996 Al Jul. 2, 2009 (hereinafter "Lynch") THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1--4, 6-9, 15-21, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1and12 of US 8,120,927 in view of Conner and Juskey. 2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. 3. Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Admitted by Applicant Prior Art (hereinafter "AAPA")2 in combination with Conner, Kelly, and Juskey. 4. Claims 3--4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of AAP A, Conner, Kelly, Juskey, and Lynch. 5. Claims 15-16, 18-22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Conner, Leipold, and Juskey. 6. Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of AAP A, Conner, Leipold, Juskey, and Lynch. 2 The Examiner relies on the description of a conventional two-layered printed circuit board in paragraph 4 and Figs. 1 A-1 C of the Specification as AAPA. 3 Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 Rejections 1and2 DISCUSSION Appellant does not argue Rejections 1 and 2, and states they will be addressed upon resolution of this appeal. App. Br. 2-3. Accordingly, we summarily affirm these rejections. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1205.02 (2005) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board."). Rejection 3 Appellant argues claims 1 and 6 as a group, and does not present argument for separate patentability of the dependent claims. App. Br. 6-11. Therefore, we limit our discussion to representative claim 1; all other claims subject to the first rejection stand or fall with claim 1. Appellant argues that Kelly does not disclose a power plane "directly connected" to an electronic device on the top surface of the PCB' s substrate, as recited in claim 1, and further that the Examiner's rationale for the combination of references in the rejection is "incomplete and improper" under 35 U.S.C. § 103. App. Br. 7-8. After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant's contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the rejection. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons expressed in the Final Rejection mailed March 13, 2014 (hereinafter "Final Act.") and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds that "Kelly discloses in fig. 2 the power plane 46 is directly connected to the electronic device 50 on the top surface of the printed circuit board 30." Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that plane 46 is not directly connected to component 50 because Kelly's Fig. 2 shows an 4 Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 undefined block between plane 46 and pin 52 of component 50. App. Br. 7. Appellant relies on a dictionary definition of "direct" as "in immediate physical contact," but does not point to any definition of the phrase in the Specification. App. Br. 7. Indeed, as the Examiner explains, Appellant's Specification shows power plane 208 directly connected to semiconductor electronic device 220 through finger 206c, consistently with how Kelly's power plane and electronic device are connected by the unidentified block. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. Fig. 6b ). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the rejection should be overturned. As to Appellant's further argument that the Examiner's rationale for the combination of references in the rejection is incomplete and improper, we note that the Examiner relies on statements within each reference which support the rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references. Ans. 3--4 (citing Conner 3:10-11; Kelly i-f 14; Juskey 7:32-35 and Fig. 5). Appellant does not dispute that evidence but rather argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or explanations to support the rationale. App. Br. 9-10. Appellant's argument lacks persuasive merit. The Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness," which is sufficient under KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7, and 10. Rejection 5 Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16, 18-22, and 23 lacks coherency "because it represents a piecemeal reconstruction of the claimed invention." App. Br. 11-12. Appellant further argues, as above, that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or explanations to support the combination of references. 5 Appeal2014-009592 Application 12/258,594 Id. We do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible error. The Examiner has provided "an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 15-16, 18-22, and 23. Rejections 4 and 6 Appellant does not contest either of Rejections 4 and 6, other than an implicit reliance on the arguments discussed above in connection with Rejections 3 and 5, respectively. As such, we affirm Rejections 4 and 6 for the reasons set forth above. 3 SUMMARY We affirm the rejections of claims 1-10 and 15-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). AFFIRMED 3 Appellant's omission of Rejections 4 and 6 from the listing of grounds to be reviewed on Appeal, App. Br. 5, does not negate the presumption that this appeal is taken from the rejection of all pending claims. See 37 C.F.R. 41.31(c). 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation