Ex Parte Lorenz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14193985 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/193,985 02/28/2014
23494 7590 09/27/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Perry Scott Lorenz
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.
TI-73474 6242
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PERRY SCOTT LORENZ
Appeal2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MONTE T. SQUIRE
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1---6, 9--12, 15-17, and 20 of
Application 14/193,985 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Final Act. (Jun.
6, 2016) 3-8. Appellant1 seeks reversal of the rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART.
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a method "for capturing
analog information, such as from an analog sensor, including converting the
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Texas Instruments Incorporated, which is
also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
analog information to a train of pulses, representing the analog information
as the number of pulses in the pulse train." Abstract. The application
further teaches that "[ t ]his pulse count data can be communicated to a
processor configured to count the pulses in the pulse train, and convert this
pulse count data into digital data corresponding to the analog information."
Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the claims at issue and is reproduced
below:
1. A circuit operable to convert analog information into
digital data for communication to a remote processor,
compnsmg:
input circuitry configured to provide an input signal
corresponding to the analog information;
pulse count circuitry configured to convert the input
signal into pulse count data in which the analog information is
represented by a number of pulses; and
data communication circuitry configured to transmit the
pulse count data to the remote processor as pulse count comm
data;
the remote processor configured to receive the analog
information by counting the received pulse count comm data.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 2
1. Claims 1---6, 10-12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) (pre-AIA) as anticipated by Thomson. 3 Final Act. 3---6.
2. Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as obvious over Thomson in view of Takahashi. 4 Id. at 6-8.
DISCUSSION
Appellant seeks review of the rejections of claims 1-15. Appellant
does not appeal the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 20. Appeal Br. 2.
Appellant presents argument regarding claims 1 and 10, the only
independent claims at issue. Id. Accordingly, we decide the appeal as to the
remaining claims based on the arguments made in support of the
patentability of claims 1 and 10.
Rejection 1. The Examiner determined claims 1 and 10 to be
anticipated by Thomson. Final Act. 3-5. In support of the rejection, the
Examiner found that Thomson teaches a circuit that includes the following
components:
pulse count circuitry (10, 12) configured to convert the input
signal ( 4) into pulse count data ( output of 12) in which the
2 Claim 13 is listed as rejected in the Final Action dated June 6, 2016. Claim
13, however, is not included in the body of either rejection. Further, it is
described as having allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent
form. Final Act. 9. Accordingly, we regard claim 13 as objected to rather
than rejected.
3 US 5,559,514, issued Sep. 24, 1996.
4 US 4,754,257, issued Jun. 28, 1988.
3
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
analog information (2) is represented by a number of pulses
( output of 12); and data communication circuitry ( 14)
configured to transmit (transmitter) the pulse count data (output
of 12) to the remote processor (16; Col. 3 line 12) as pulse
count comm data ( output of pulse count of 12 on transmission
line 14 ); the remote processor (16) configured to receive the
analog information (2) by counting (26,28) the received pulse
count comm data ( output of pulse count of 12 on transmission
line 14).
Id. at 4. These structures are depicted in Figure 1 of Thomson, reproduced
below:
' .
......... ._...._...._...._..._..._...._...._...._..._..._,._..._,,,:,.,:, .... '-'-'-'-'-................... ~.·--...,,... .................................... .,. ............................... ~
Fl. :ff 1· ·b·'
Figure 1 of Thomson is a block diagram of a temperature sensing system, in
which a sensed temperature is converted to a digital signal and delivered
over a one-line transmission system to a remote receiver. Thomson, 2:52-
56.
Appellant argues that the output of Thomson's counter (12) is not the
claimed "pulse count data" in which the "analog information is represented
by a number of pulses." Appeal Br. 6. In support, Appellant cites to
Thomson's discussion of the output of various circuit elements. These
outputs are depicted graphically below.
4
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
(.,:;
F' · ">b .. 1g.. ..:...., ·?i ,--1 r-1 J""lLJl nn ~---·. ........... J :............... . ........... -. ___________ ..,.. ___ J .-.-.... -.-..... -.-..... -... -.......... .. ~-.-.-..~ ........................... ~ ~... L ......... J L .... .
F .. ''l . 1g .. ~c
Thomson states that "[t]he signal patterns produced at the outputs of the
clock 8, sigma-delta modulator 10 and counter 12 are illustrated in FIGS.
2a-2c, respectively." Thomson, 4:46-48. Thus, the output of counter 12,
which Appellant argues is not the claimed "pulse count data," is shown in
Figure 2c.
Thomson describes the counter output as follows:
The present invention seeks to provide an ADC whose
output is independent of variations in its clock frequency,
which has a one-line output, and which is small enough to be
readily integrated on a single IC chip.
These goals are achieved by basing the output digital
signal upon the duty cycle, rather than the absolute value, of
the output from a sigma-delta modulator that receives the input
analog signal. The duty cycle of the modulator's output is
averaged to generate an output signal that corresponds to the
input analog signal.
Thomson, 2:3-12 (emphasis added). Thomson defines the output duty cycle
as "the percentage of the total output time that is occupied by active pulses."
Id. at 3 :40-41.
Claim 1 requires that an input signal be converted to "pulse count
data in which the analog information is represented by a number of
pulses" and that the remote processor "receive the analog information by
counting the received pulse count comm data." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims
5
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
App.) (emphasis added). Claim 10 includes similar limitations. Id. at 13.
The Specification includes a discussion of pulse count data as follows:
The Pulse Count Data is not a form of data encoding, but
instead, analog information (such as a sensed physical state) is
converted into a train of pulses with a corresponding pulse
count such that the analog information can be received/
recovered by counting the number of pulses in the pulse train
that constitutes the Pulse Count Data. That is, Pulse Count
Data is a pulse train with starting pulse and an ending pulse.
The pulse counting operation can be substantially
independent of frequency, period, duty-cycle or pulse width,
and can be substantially independent of pulse rising and falling
edge slew rate.
Spec. ,r 21 ( emphasis added). Thus, the claims require that the analog
information be represented by an actual number of pulses. Thomson,
however, has an output corresponding to the duty cycle of sigma-delta
modulator 10. That is, Thomson's output indicates "the percentage of the
total output time that is occupied by active pulses." Thomson, 3 :41.
Accordingly, Thomson does not teach "pulse count data" in which the
"analog information is represented by a number of pulses" and does not
anticipate claims 1 or 10.
As claims 2-6, 11, and 12 depend from claims 1 and 10 and were
rejected on the same basis, we determine that such rejection is in error as to
these claims for the same reasons as with regard to claims 1 and 10.
Appellant does not present argument regarding the rejection of claims
16 and 17. Accordingly, the rejection of these claims is summarily affirmed.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307,
1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Nov. 2015) ("If a ground of rejection stated by
the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has waived
6
Appeal 2018-000248
Application 14/193,985
any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily
sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the
examiner's answer.").
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 15, and 20 as obvious
over Thomson in view of Takahashi. Final Act. 6-8. Appellant does not
present separate argument concerning this rejection; rather, with regard to
the rejection of claims 9 and 15, it relies upon the arguments presented in
regard to claims 1 and 10. As such arguments were found to be persuasive
with regard to Thomson, and there is no contention that Takahashi teaches
the limitation found to be absent from Thomson, the rejection of claims 9
and 15 is similarly reversed.
Appellant has not appealed the rejection of claim 20. Accordingly,
such rejection is summarily affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-6 and 10-12 as anticipated by Thomson is
reversed. The rejection of claims 16 and 17 as anticipated by Thomson is
summarily affirmed. The rejection of claims 9 and 15 as obvious over
Thomson in view of Takahashi is reversed. The rejection of claim 20 as
obvious over Thomson in view of Takahashi is summarily affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7