Ex Parte Rofougaran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11472205 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111472,205 06/21/2006 Ahmadreza (Reza) Rofougaran
51472 7590 03/17/2016
GARLICK & MARKISON
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
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.
BP5341 4227
EXAMINER
TUN,NAYL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AHMADREZA (REZA) ROFOUGARAN
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205 1
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-17, and 23-26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed June 21, 2006 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed July 17, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 14, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 25,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 23, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to an integrated circuit (IC) assembly
including circuitry to perform functions, including a low power function,
radio frequency identification (RFID) circuitry, and an antenna structure.
(Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit (IC) assembly comprises:
a plurality of circuits, wherein, when operable, a first
circuit of the plurality of circuits performs at least one function
and, when in a power saving mode, performs at least one low
power function;
tag circuitry coupled to, regardless of the mode of the
circuit, process an incoming radio frequency (RF) signal to
generate a supply voltage independent of any power source for
the tag circuitry and, wherein the tag circuitry provides the
supply voltage directly to the first circuit when the circuit is in
the power saving mode, the first circuit being external to the tag
circuitry and the at least one low power function performed by
the circuit being unrelated to operations performed by the tag
circuitry; and
an antenna structure coupled to receive the incoming RF
signal and to provide the incoming RF signal to the tag
circuitry.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Brideglall (US 7,215,976 B2; May 8, 2007 (hereinafter
"Brideglall-1 ")) and Paradiso et al. (US 2006/0046664 Al; Mar. 2, 2006
(hereinafter "Paradiso")). (Final Act. 3-7.)
2
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
Claims 4 and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Brideglall-1, Paradiso, and Brideglall (US 2002/0126013 Al; Sept. 12, 2002
(hereinafter "Brideglall-2")). (Final Act. 8-13.)
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a)-Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and23-26-Brideglall-l and Paradiso
Appellant argues the combination of Brideglall-1 and Paradiso fails to
teach
wherein the tag circuitry provides the supply voltage directly to
the first circuit when the circuit is in the power saving mode,
the first circuit being external to the tag circuitry and the at
least one low power function performed by the circuit being
unrelated to operations performed by the tag circuitry
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). (App. Br. 12-16; Reply Br. 2---6.)
Appellant also argues the combination fails to teach
additional circuitry external to the tag circuitry and that
includes a baseband processing module and an RF
transmission section, wherein the additional circuitry is
coupled to receive the supply voltage directly from the tag
circuitry when the additional circuitry is in a power savings
mode, and wherein the additional circuitry performs at least
one of a plurality of low power functions unrelated to
operations performed by the tag circuitry
as recited in independent claims 10 and 23 (emphasis added). (App. Br. 17-
20; Reply Br. 6-8.)
Specifically, Appellant argues: (1) Paradiso and Brideglall-1 fail to
teach providing harvested energy directly from an RFID tag to the
communication module of Paradiso or transceiver ofBrideglall-1 (App. Br.
13-14); (2) Paradiso fails to teach an RFID tag or similar type of tag
circuitry as claimed (id. at 14); and (3) Paradiso does not indicate how RF
3
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
coupling would be performed or how the received external power would be
coupled to the power module 103 (id.).
1. Direct Energy
The Examiner finds Brideglall-1 teaches tag circuitry that processes
an RF signal to generate a supply voltage and supply power to a Bluetooth
transceiver via a battery. (Ans. 7 citing Fig. 3 -404, 424, 428; 3:2-8; 9:39-
50; 7:34--53.) Paradiso teaches an RF power harvesting module that
harvests RF energy and supplies power to the Bluetooth communication
module (id. citing Fig. 1, 103, 113, i-fi-163, 97). According to the Examiner,
power can be supplied indirectly through the battery as taught by Brideglall-
1 (7:34--53), or directly by bypassing the battery when harvesting power is
available, as taught by Paradiso (i-f 97). Thus, the Examiner concludes, the
combination of Paradiso and Brideglall-1 teaches the claimed limitation.
The disagreement between the Examiner and Appellant centers on
interpretation of the term "directly." Appellant argues Paradiso's power
module does not supply power directly to the communication module
because of the presence of charging circuit 127, step-down converter 129,
and output terminal 111. (App. Br. 13-14.) Appellant also argues
Brideglall-1 's wake-up circuit 404 does not provide supply voltage directly
to transceiver 428. (Id.) In contrast, the Examiner interprets supplying
power "directly" to mean the RF power is supplied by the tag circuitry as
opposed to "indirectly" via a battery that is charged with RF power that is
supplied by the tag circuitry. (Ans. 7-8.)
We agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the term "directly."
We find no definition in the Specification of what is meant by "directly" in
the claimed context, and neither Appellant nor the Examiner reference any
definition in the Specification or elsewhere. The Specification mentions
4
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
"coupling" may include "direct coupling" without intervening items and/or
"indirect coupling" with intervening items. (Spec. 18.) However, the claims
do not use the term "direct coupling" or "directly coupled" to describe the
connection of the tag circuitry to the first circuit (claim 1) or additional
circuitry (claims 10 and 23). Instead, the language of claim 1 states "tag
circuitry provides the supply voltage directly to the first circuit" and claims
10 and 23 state "additional circuitry is coupled to receive the supply voltage
directly from the tag circuitry." Thus, we find the Examiner's reasoning of
how the person of ordinary skill would interpret the claim language to be the
more persuasive. As the Examiner noted, Paradiso (i-f 97) teaches providing
power directly to communications module 107 by bypassing the battery
when harvested power is available, as opposed to indirectly providing power
from the battery after charging the battery with harvested power.
Accordingly, the combination ofBrideglall-1 and Paradiso teaches the
claimed limitation under the Examiner's correct interpretation of the term
"directly."
Even if we were to adopt Appellant's interpretation of "directly"
(which we decline to do for the reasons explained), Paradiso's power
module 103 is directly connected to the processor/communications module
107, so Paradiso combined with Brideglall-1 teaches the claimed feature
under Appellant's interpretation. Appellant's argument that the power
module 103 intercedes between "tag circuitry" and the processor/
communications module 107 is unavailing because the power module 103
may be considered part of the claimed "tag circuitry," thus satisfying the
claimed limitation.
Also, there is the issue of what one regards to be encompassed by the
"tag circuitry" and "first circuit" (claim 1) or "additional circuitry" (claims
5
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
10 and 23). For instance, if the tag circuitry is regarded to include
Brideglall-1 's RF-Power/Wake-up circuit 404, protocol processor 414, and
regulator/charger 424, then it is directly connected to the transceiver 428
under Appellant's interpretation. Alternatively, the "first circuit" (claim 1)
or "additional circuitry" (claim 10 and 23) may be considered to include
Brideglall-1 's protocol processor 414 and transceiver 428, and the "tag
circuitry" may be considered to include RF-Power/Wake-up circuit 404 and
regulator/charger 424. In that case, the "tag circuitry" is directly coupled to
the "first circuit," and Brideglall-1 teaches "[t ]he wake up circuit rectifies
the [received RF] energy and stores it onto the capacitor 408. The
regulator/charger 424 is then able to supply stabilized power [directly] to the
processor." (Brideglall-1 9:42--45.) There is no language in the claims to
preclude such interpretations.
Moreover, it is commonly understood that high (or low) and ground
voltages are often not shown in circuit diagrams for simplification. The
person of ordinary skill would understand that voltage from Brideglall-1 's
capacitor Cstore is distributed in parallel from regulator 424 to other
components of the system such as the protocol processor 414 and transceiver
428. Appellant's drawing at Figure 8 is exemplary of this practice as the
supply voltage VDD generated across capacitor Cl (the equivalent of
Brideglall-1 's Cstore) is distributed in parallel to the other circuit
components, though the direct connection between those components and
capacitor C 1 is not shown. In other words, all active elements of Brideglall-
1 's Figure 3 circuit, including the protocol processor 414, and transceiver
428, are understood to be directly connected to a common high voltage rail
from which they draw power. The protocol processor 414 and transceiver
6
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
428 are thus directly connected to receive this power, whether it originates
directly from the capacitor Cstore or indirectly from the battery 428.
2. Tag Circuitry
Appellant argues Paradiso does not teach an RFID tag or any similar-
type of tag circuitry. (App. Br. 14.) To the contrary, the Examiner states
that the claimed "tag circuitry" merely requires processing of a signal to
generate a supply voltage, and Paradiso teaches this feature. (Ans. 6-7.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. The
Examiner relied on Brideglall-1, not Paradiso, to teach the claimed "tag
circuitry." (See, e.g., Final Act. 3 citing Brideglall-1 3:2-8 and 9:39-50.)
Thus, Appellant's argument is an attack on Paradiso alone that fails to
consider its combination with Brideglall-1. "[O]ne cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually, where ... the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
3. RF Power Coupling
Appellant argues Paradiso mentions the power module may be able to
receive power from an external source via RF coupling but does not indicate
how the RF coupling would actually be performed or how the received
external power would then be coupled to the power module 103. (App. Br.
14). The Examiner found that Paradiso teaches an RF power harvesting
module (Fig. 1, 103) that harvests RF energy and supplies power to
Bluetooth communication module (Fig. 1, 113) similar to Bluetooth
transceiver 428 of Brideglall-1. (Ans. 7).
We agree with the Examiner that RF power coupling is known in the
art, as exemplified by Paradiso and Brideglall-1. Even if we accept
Appellant's argument (which we do not), the Examiner relies on both
7
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
Paradiso and Brideglall-1 in the rejection. Appellant makes no showing that
Brideglall-1 fails to teach this feature, and there is evidence it does perform
RF power coupling (see discussion at 8:59-9:14). Thus, because
Appellant's argument does not address the combination of references, we are
not persuaded the Examiner errs in the rejection. See Keller, supra.
§ 103(a)- Claims 4 and 10--17-Brideglall-l, Paradiso, and Brideglall-2
Appellant argues Brideglall-2 does not teach or suggest that RFID
functionality provides a supply voltage directly to the Bluetooth
functionality. (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 6-8). As mentioned in Section 1
above, we agree with the Examiner that Paradiso teaches this feature. Thus,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
CONCLUSION
To support a rejection under§ 103(a), "there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Telej1ex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting Jn re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). On this record,
we find the Examiner's reasoning and underpinning adequate to support the
conclusions of obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7, 9-17,
and 23-26 are 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)(l )(iv).
8
Appeal2014-005980
Application 11/472,205
AFFIRMED
9