Ex Parte Pons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

13383941 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/383,941 01/13/2012 Alexandre Pons
24112 7590 11/22/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8721 I C01228-US1 2840
EXAMINER
AHMAD, SHAHZEB K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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 ALEXANDRE PONS
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 8, 9, and 13-15. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellant identifies Ericsson Modems SA as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 10-12 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
(Final Act. 12.) Claims 1-7 were canceled. (App. Br. 24.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 13, 2012 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 23, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Feb. 6, 2015 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 1, 2015
("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed June 8, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to limiting short-circuit current in low-dropout
voltage regulators. (Spec. 1: 1-5.) Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
8. A low-dropout voltage regulator comprising:
an output terminal to provide an output voltage regulated
as a function of a reference voltage and to provide an output
current; and
an output current limiting unit comprising:
an output current replication module to provide a
mirror current of the output current,
a comparison module to compare the mirror current
with a reference current,
a feedback module to limit the output current when
the mirror current is greater than the reference current;
wherein the mirror current is injected into the output terminal.
(App. Br. 24, Claims App'x.)
REJECTIONS 4
Claims 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gicquel et al. (US 2007 /0268008 Al; published Nov. 22, 2007) and Al-
Shyoukh et al. (US 2007/0216383 Al; published Sept. 20, 2007). (Final
Act. 7-11.)
4 The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been
withdrawn. (See Adv. Act. mailed Dec. 12, 2014.)
2
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gicquel, Al-Shyoukh, and Aizawa (US 7,855,537 B2; issued Dec. 21, 2010).
(Final Act. 11-12.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
Regarding independent claims 8, 13, and 14, Appellant contends the
Examiner's proffered combination of Gicquel and Al-Shyoukh is improper
for the following reasons:
1. The voltage-mode current limiting circuit of Al-Shyoukh cannot be
combined with the current-mode current limiting circuit of Gicquel, because
the two circuits operate on fundamentally different electrical principles, and
components from one cannot simply be substituted into the other without a
compelling reason to suffer the design complexity, proliferation of
components, and additional power consumption necessary for such inter-
modal operation. (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-5.) Al-Shyoukh limits
current by monitoring voltage at a node where a mirror current runs through
a sense resistor, and whether the mirror current is then directed to ground or
the output is irrelevant. (App. Br. 8.) In Gicquel's circuit, mirror current is
directly compared to a reference current at a transistor that is turned on by
raising its gate voltage above ground, a result that is achieved by the mirror
current flowing to ground. (Id.) The Examiner has not explained how
modifying Gicquel to inject the mirror current into the output would be
possible, and has not provided a reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to
overcome the complexities of incorporating a sub-section of Al-Shyoukh' s
voltage-mode circuit into Gicquel's current-mode circuit. (App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 4--5.)
3
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
2. Modifying Gicquel to incorporate Al-Shyoukh's current monitoring
circuit, which injects mirror current into the output, would create an
inoperative device. (App. Br. 10-13.) Gicquel's mirror current flows from
a mirror transistor, and then either bypasses a current monitoring transistor
or flows through that transistor to ground when voltage between the source
and gate becomes positive. (Id.) Changing the current monitoring
transistor's source node from ground to the output node, as suggested by the
Examiner, would prevent Gicquel's current monitoring transistor from
turning on, thus destroying the current comparison mechanism and rendering
the circuit inoperative. (Id.)
3. Gicquel's emphasis on near-complete separation of the voltage
regulating circuit and the current limiting circuit teaches away from injecting
mirror current into the output terminal. (App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 2-3.)
The current limiting circuit of Gicquel is largely inactive most of the time
and has minimai interaction with the voltage reguiating circuit, whereas Ai-
Shyoukh's voltage-mode current measuring circuit is an integral part of the
voltage regulating function and always has current flowing through it. (Id.)
The Examiner has provided no explanation why one of skill in the art would,
inter alia, increase power consumption in Gicquel's current limiting circuit
by more tightly integrating it with the voltage regulating circuit or its output.
(App. Br. 15.)
4. The Examiner's stated motivation to modify Gicquel, specifically that
injecting the mirror current into the output terminal would enable slow
charging of an external load, allow more precise current control in the
voltage regulator during startup, and provide an extra current source that
allows a more amplified current output, fails to explain why one of skill in
4
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
the art would attempt such a modification. (App. Br. 15-22; Reply Br. 5-7.)
Gicquel's voltage regulator already enables slow charging of an external
load with precise current control, while Al-Shyoukh is completely silent
regarding the utility or desirability of injecting mirror current to the output
node; regardless, one of ordinary skill would understand that injecting mirror
current into the output would not provide the charging function as stated by
the Examiner. (App. Br. 15-22.) Further, Al-Shyoukh does not suggest the
mirror current comprises any significant part of the output current, and one
of skill in the art can use Gicquel' s circuit alone to match any total current
that could be output by Al-Shyoukh's circuit, thus the combination does not
provide a more amplified current output compared to Gicquel's circuit (App.
Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 6-7.) Therefore, having failed to provide a rational
motivation to combine the teachings of Gicquel and Al-Shyoukh, the
Examiner relies upon improper hindsight reconstruction using Appellant's
disciosure to reject the ciaims. (App. Br. 22; Repiy Br. 7.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments (App. Br. 5-22; Reply Br. 2-7) that the Examiner erred. We
disagree with Appellant's above contentions 1--4. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7-12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-11) in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
5
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
Independent Claims 8, 13, and 14
Regarding Appellant's contention 1 that the complexity of combining
voltage-mode and current-mode current limiter circuits renders the
Examiner's combination improper, Appellant has provided no factual
evidence to support this assertion. (See App. Br. 9--10.) As attorney
argument alone is not evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by
Appellant's argument. (See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).)
As to Appellant's contention 2 that modifying Gicquel to incorporate
Al-Shyoukh's current monitoring circuit would create an inoperative device,
the Examiner properly relies on In re Keller and states the "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 skin in the art." (Ans. 4; In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).) Further, when combining references, "a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." (KSR Int'! v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).) We agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combined teachings of Gicquel and Al-Shyoukh suggest to one of ordinary
skill the concepts of a current limiter having a mirror current that is
compared with a reference current and a mirror current that is injected into
the output terminal. (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4--5 (citing Gicquel Fig. 2 and Al-
Shyoukh Fig. 2).) We further agree that a skilled artisan, in light of the
combined teachings of the references and the creative steps that would be
employed, would be able to fit the known elements of the references
6
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
together like pieces of a puzzle to arrive at the claimed voltage regulator,
and, as such, the device would not be inoperative. (See KSR, 550 U.S. at
420.)
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellant's contention 3
that Gicquel teaches away from injecting mirror current into the output
terminal. Appellant argues power consumption would be increased in
Gicquel's circuit by such an arrangement, but Appellant has not identified a
teaching in Gicquel that criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages
connecting the mirror current to an output node. (See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).) Thus, we do not agree that Gicquel teaches
away from a combination with Al-Shyoukh.
Appellant's contention 4 that the combination of Gicquel and Al-
Shyoukh is based on improper hindsight reasoning does not present
persuasive evidence that the Examiner's rejection is based on knowledge
gieaned oniy from Appeiiant's disclosure, or based on knowiedge which was
beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time. (See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395(CCPA1971)). We are satisfied thatthe
Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness," which is
based on knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See KSR,
550 U.S. at 417-18 (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).) Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that
comparison modules using a reference current or reference voltage are well
known in the art, and the simple substitution of one known comparison
module for another is obvious. (Final Act. 3; Ans. 11) (See KSR, 550 U.S. at
7
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
416: "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 8, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gicquel
and Al-Shyoukh. 5
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for remaining dependent claims
9 and 15. (See App. Br. 23.) Thus, for reasons stated with respect to
independent claims 8 and 14, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of the
dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).)
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 8, 9, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
5 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether Al-Shyoukh anticipates at least claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b ). Claim 8 does not require the comparison module to
"directly" compare the mirror current with a reference current, thus the
claim may be anticipated by Al-Shyoukh's current limiter circuit that
indirectly involves the comparison of a mirror current to other currents in the
circuit (i.e., "reference currents") through the various connections to the
reference voltage source. (See Al-Shyoukh i-fi-f 17-19.) Although the Board
is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference
should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. (See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Nov.
2015).)
8
Appeal2015-006321
Application 13/3 83 ,941
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9