Ex Parte RofougaranDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 201611472205 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation