Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020004475 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
16/121,570 09/04/2018 Christopher Allan Poirier 90647707 8090
56436 7590 06/02/2021
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
CHENG, DIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ALLAN POIRIER, RYAN BARNHILL,
and DACHENG ZHOU

Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570
Technology Center 2800

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and SHELDON M.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE the prior art rejections and AFFIRM the double
patenting rejections, leaving all claims rejected.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Development LP. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to set-reset (“SR”) latch
circuits that may reduce input-to-output propagation delays. Spec. ¶ 18.
Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce it below while emphasizing key
recitations:
1. A circuit, comprising:
an inverter storage loop for storing state information;
first and second p-channel field-effect transistors
(PFETs) connected to a first node of the inverter storage loop;
and
third and fourth PFETs connected to a second node of the
inverter storage loop;
wherein gate terminals of the first and fourth PFETs
are connected to a first control input, and gate terminals of
the second and third PFETs are connected to a second control
input.

Appeal Br. 17. The other two independent claims on appeal, claims 14 and
17, similarly require first and fourth field-effect transistors connected to
different nodes of an inverter storage loop and connected to a first control
input. Id. at 20–21.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated July 5, 2019
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated March 31, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed May 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 8,058,901 B2 Nov. 15, 2011
Lovitt US 9,628,055 B1 Apr. 18, 2017
Poirier et al. (“Poirier
’150”)
US 10,075,150 B2 Sept. 11, 2018

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1–19 and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1–9 and 11–19 of Poirier ’150. Final Act. 3.3
B. Claims 1–3, 7, 8, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Zhang. Id. at 5.
C. Claims 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Zhang in view of Lovitt. Id. at 7.
D. Claims 6, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhang
and under the reasoning of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Id. at 10.

3 The Examiner’s nonstatutory double patenting rejection refers to claims 1–
9 and 12–20 and separately refers to claims 10 and 11. Final Act. 3–4. Claim
20, however, has been cancelled. The Office Action Summary indicates that
claims 1–9, 14–19, and 21 are rejected (i.e., not claims 10–13). While
unclear, it appears on this record that the Examiner intended to reject claims
1–19 and 21 based upon obviousness type double patenting. In the event of
further prosecution, the Examiner and Appellant may wish to clarify.
Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

4
OPINION
Rejection A. The Examiner rejects Claims 1–19 and 21 on the ground
of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–9 and 11–19
of Poirier ’150. Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 11 as
claiming the same invention as claims 1 and 10 of Poirier ’150. Id. at 4.
Appellant does not address either double patenting rejection, and we
therefore summarily sustain the rejections.
Rejection B. The Examiner rejects Claims 1–3, 7, 8, 14, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Zhang. Final Act 5. To resolve the
issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s findings and
determinations that relate to the error Appellant alleges. Because we decide
this appeal based on limitations recited, in substance, by each independent
claim, we focus our analysis on claim 1. This analysis is equally applicable
to each of the independent claims and, by extension, all of the dependent
claims.
The Examiner finds that Zhang teaches that its first and fourth PFETs
(M1A and M1B, respectively) “are connected to a first control input (CK
and CKB are connected to M1A and M1B, respectively; where CKB is
inverted CK).” Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that CK and CKB are not the
same signal and therefore cannot be “one control input (i.e., a first control
input).” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner responds by emphasizing that “CK
generates both CK and CKB” so that the first and fourth PFETs “are both
connected to a first control input CK.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further
emphasizes that “the gate of M1A is connected to the first control input CK;
the gate of M1B is connected to the first control input CK, inverted (for
example, by an inverter) (CKB).” Id.
Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

5
Appellant’s argument persuades us of reversible error. Claim 1 cannot
be reasonably construed so broadly that it would encompass Zhang’s
configuration that inputs different signals to the first and fourth PFETs
simultaneously. Claim 1 and the Specification’s context indicate that a single
“first control input” must provide input to the first and fourth PFETs. Claims
14 and 17 are similar in this regard. If the “first control input” passes
through an inverter prior to reaching the fourth PFET (as in Zhang), there
would no longer be an identical “first control input” providing input to both
the “first and fourth PFETs.” This interpretation of Appellant’s claims is
consistent with the Specification because the Specification’s embodiments
illustrate first and fourth PFETs being controlled by an identical first control
input. See, e.g., Fig. 1 (showing identical control input sx connected to
PFETs 120 and 150); see also Spec. ¶¶ 28–32 (explaining operation based
on a control input being asserted high or low such that PFETs 120 and 150
may, for example, be “turned on and conducting” simultaneously).
Because the Examiner fails to adequately establish a “first and fourth
PFETs are connected to a first control input” (and similar recitations for
independent claims 14 and 17), we do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection C. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (as stated for claim 1) in
further view of Lovitt. Final Act. 7.4

4 Although this rejection only addresses dependent claims, we assess
Appellant’s arguments regarding this rejection because, due to the factual
nature of this rejection, the Examiner’s explanation of this rejection could
possibly cure the error we identify above with regard to the independent
claims if the rejection were sustained.
Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

6
Claim 4 recites, for example, that “the first control input is a Set
control input.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Zhang
does not explicitly disclose that the first control input is a Set control input.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Lovitt teaches a set and reset latch
similar to the latch of Zhang’s Figure 1A. Id. The Examiner determines that
“[i]t would have been obvious to use the set and reset inputs of Lovitt in
place of D and DB inputs of Zhang et al., for the purpose of working
‘independently of control signals and relies only on the state of the S and R
inputs.’” Ans. 8 (quoting Lovitt 1:11–12).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Zhang
and Lovitt would improperly change Zhang’s principle of operation. Appeal
Br. 14–15. We agree with Appellant that, on this record, the Examiner has
not adequately explained the rationale for combining the teachings of Zhang
and Lovitt. As we explain above with regard to Rejection B, Zhang teaches
that different inputs (CK and the inversion of CK, CKB) should be applied
to what the Examiner identifies as the first and fourth PFETs. Zhang Fig.
1A, 3:43–47. The Examiner’s stated reason to combine the references’
teachings (Final Act. 8; Ans. 8–9) does not persuasively address why a
person of skill in the art would have modified Zhang so that an identical
input would be applied to the first and fourth PFETs.
We, thus, do not sustain this rejection.
Rejection D. This rejection applies to dependent claims 6, 18, and 19,
and the Examiner’s statement of this rejection does not cure the error
addressed above. Final Act. 10. We, thus, do not sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2020-004475
Application 16/121,570

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19, 21 Nonstatutory Double
Patenting
Poirier ’150
1–19, 21
1–3, 7, 8,
14, 17
102(a)(1) Zhang 1–3, 7, 8,
14, 17
4, 5, 9, 15,
16, 21
103 Zhang, Lovitt 4, 5, 9, 15,
16, 21
6, 18, 19 103 Zhang 6, 18, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED