Ex Parte Ginggen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 19, 201512313445 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2015) 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. 12/313,445 11/19/2008 Alec Ginggen COD5076USCON1 2854 33766 7590 06/19/2015 COHEN & HILDEBRAND, PLLC 2409 CHURCH ROAD CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 EXAMINER MYERS, PAUL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2185 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/19/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEC GINGGEN and ROCCO CRIVELLI ___________ Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN A. EVANS and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm-in-part. Introduction The invention is directed to “to power consumption optimization circuitry for a system having multiple electronic components of which at least one is always powered on and at least one is normally powered off until otherwise powered on to perform a specific task or function.” Specification ¶ 2. Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 2 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. Circuitry for conserving power in a system having multiple electronic components, comprising: a power source; a first electronic component operating at a first frequency and continuously powered on by the power source; and a second electronic component operating at a second frequency different than that of the first frequency of the first electric component, the second electronic component being maintained in a powered off state in which no energy is consumed by the second electronic component until energized in response to a power enabling signal generated by the first electronic component based on demand of the particular function to be performed by the second electronic component. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–10 and 12–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry (US Patent Number 5,142,684; issued August 25, 1992) and Chauvel (US Patent Number 6,889,330 B2; issued May 3, 2005). Answer 5–7. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry, Chauvel and Fung (US Patent Number 5,396,635; issued March 7, 1995). Answer 8. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 20, 2013) and the Answer (mailed September 11, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 3 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellants contend the claimed “no energy is consumed by the second electronic component” limitation as recited in claim 1 is not disclosed by the Perry/Chauvel combination. Appeal Brief 6. The Examiner does not rely on Perry for teaching this limitation and Appellants argue Chauvel fails to address this deficiency because: [A]s clearly illustrated in the drawing [Figure 11] itself, an electrical connection is nevertheless maintained at all times (as depicted by the horizontal line) between MPU (12) and the “coprocessor and peripheral” block (including coprocessor (16) performing high speed mathematical computations) such that some amount of power is always consumed by the coprocessor and peripheral block (including coprocessor (16)), even when in a disable state. Appeal Brief 6–7. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Chauvel’s Specification does not support Appellants’ position. An attorney’s arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that, regardless of Chauvel’s Figure 11 failure to disclose switching circuitry as disclosed in the Specification, “Chauvel et al expressly states ‘Coprocessor 16 is shown as disabled (power off), along with peripheral A 100a while Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 4 peripheral B 100b is shown as enabled.’” Answer 9 (quoting Chauvel column 8, lines 60–62). Appellants further argue modifying Perry in accordance to Chauvel’s teachings would “result in the power switching circuitry taught by Chauvel et al. being disposed between processors (10, 20) of Perry et al., not between battery (21) and adjustable switching regulator (19).” Appeal Brief 7. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Chauvel’s Specification does not support Appellants’ position. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Further, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as, claims 5–8 not separately argued. Appellants contend in regard to claim 9, “Modification of Perry et al., in accordance with the teachings of Chauvel et al., would result in the ‘power switching circuitry’ being disposed between the two processors (i.e., between low performance processor (10) and high performance processor (20)).” Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds Chauvel “does not state the power switching circuitry is between the two processors” and Chauvel only shows the “power is Disabled to the components by associated power switching circuitry.” Answer 9–10. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Chauvel column 8, lines 62–67, which Appellants cite to for support, is silent in regard to the placement of the switching circuitry and therefore does not provide support for Appellants’ argument. Appellants Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 5 argue dependent claims 2 and 3 are distinguishable over the cited art because they both have limitations similar to claim 9. Appeal Brief 10. However, we did not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and thus we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3. Appellants further contend that claim 9 is distinguishable over the prior art because claim 9 requires a voltage level translator and the Examiner’s maintains that Perry teaches the use of translator when in reality Perry only teaches the use of an adjustable switching regulator. Appeal Brief 9–10. However, reviewing the Answer it is evident that the Examiner did not address the voltage level translator at all. See Answer 7. Therefore, we find Appellants’ argument persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, as well as, dependent claims 10–13. Further Appellants argue that both dependent claims 4, as well as, independent claim 14 are distinguishable over the cited art because both require a voltage level translator.1 Appeal Brief 10–11. We find Appellants’ argument persuasive and reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 14–18. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–8 are affirmed. 1 Appellants refer to claim 14 as dependent however according to the record, claim 14 is independent. Appeal Brief 15. We consider this harmless error. Appeal 2013-002778 Application 12/313,445 6 The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4 and 9–18 are reversed. 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-IN-PART kme Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation