Ex Parte ChenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201411936043 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YI-PENG CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2011-012483 Application 11/936,043 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012483 Application 11/936,043 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention generally relates to monitoring the thermal dissipation of a computer processing unit to prevent its overheating in operation (Spec. 2, [0001]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for monitoring a thermal dissipation from a processing unit, comprising: setting an observation window in a first temperature range; gradually narrowing the observation window from the first temperature range after a monitored temperature of the processing unit has entered the observation window; and issuing an interrupt signal when the monitored temperature exits the observation window. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Horinouchi US 4,484,050 Nov. 20, 1984 Liu US 2005/0030171 A1 Feb. 10, 2005 Bruno US 7,467,318 B2 Dec. 16, 2008 Chang US 7,617,020 B2 Nov. 10, 2009 Appeal 2011-012483 Application 11/936,043 3 Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu and Horinouchi. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Horinouchi and Chang. Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Horinouchi and Bruno. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that the combination of Liu and Horinouchi teaches or would have suggested “gradually narrowing the observation window from the first temperature ranger after a monitored temperature of the processing unit has entered the observation window” (claim 1, emphases added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Liu 1. Liu discloses power logic 438b that generates clock control signals that reduce the clock speed of the processor 420 when the vital temperature is high, and increase the clock speed of the processor 420 when the vital temperature is low (Fig. 7; ¶[0072]). Horinouchi 2. Horinouchi discloses a circuit provided for compensating the gradient of the output characteristics of the temperature detector to increase the gradient of the output characteristic curve of the resistance of the Appeal 2011-012483 Application 11/936,043 4 thermistor as a function of temperature in when the thermistor is operating in a temperature range in which it has low accuracy of temperature sensing (Abstract). IV. ANALYSIS Claim 1-6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-21, 23 and 24 As for claim 1, Appellant contends “Liu fails to teach the claimed observation window” (App. Br. 10). Appellant then contends “the control system in Horinouchi uses a fixed setpoint, such as 95º C, to determine when the food is finished cooking and turn off the microwave oven” (App. Br. 12) but “[t]he measured temperature is never compared to a general temperature range, nor does the fixed setpoint include both a lower bound and an upper bound” (id). Thus, Appellant contends the combination of the references fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 (App. Br. 10). After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of the references fail to teach or suggest all of the claimed limitations. Though we agree with the Examiner that Liu discloses an observation window in a first temperature range between high and low (Ans. 7, FF 1), we cannot find any teaching or suggestion in the Examiner’s recited portion of Liu and Horinouchi of “gradually narrowing the observation window from the first temperature ranger after a monitored temperature of the processing unit has entered the observation window” as required by claim 1 (emphasis, added). More particularly, although Liu discloses monitoring between high and low temperatures (FF 1), the cited portions of Horinouchi merely disclose compensating the gradient of the output characteristics of the temperature detector when the thermistor is operating in a particular Appeal 2011-012483 Application 11/936,043 5 temperature range (FF 2). We find no teaching or suggestion of gradually narrowing the range between high and low after the monitored temperature enters the range in the cited portions. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Liu and Horinouchi. Independent claim 10 similarly recite “gradually narrow the observation window… after a monitored temperature of the processing unit has entered the observation window.” Accordingly, claim 10 and claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-15, and 17-26 (depending from claims 1 and 10 respectively) stand with claim. The Examiner does not explain how Chang or Bruno would have cured the deficiencies of Liu and Horinouchi discussed above. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 over Liu, Horinouchi and Chang; and of claims 7 and 16 over Liu, Horinouchi and Bruno. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation