QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 12, 2021

2020000069 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 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.
14/860,127 09/21/2015 Mehdi Saeidi 49606.305US01 (152777) 7122
101306 7590 04/12/2021
Haynes and Boone, LLP (36340)
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
SANDERS, JOSHUA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/12/2021 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):
gary.edwards@haynesboone.com
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MEHDI SAEIDI, MELIKA ROSHANDELL,
ARPIT MITTAL, and FARSHEED MAHMOUDI
____________________

Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, 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 1–3, 6–16, 20, 22–28, and 30. Claims
4, 5, 17–19, 21, and 29 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 13–19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material
added):
1. A method comprising:
[A.] receiving an electrical signal from a temperature sensor of a
chip package that includes a processor chip,
[i.] wherein the temperature sensor is disposed outside of
the processor chip, and
[ii.] wherein the temperature sensor is separated from the
processor chip by a layer of dielectric in a substrate of
the chip package and is disposed below a bottom-most
metal layer of the chip package,
[iii.] further wherein the temperature sensor comprises a
temperature diode;
[B.] generating temperature information from the electrical
signal;
[C.] processing the temperature information to determine that a
performance of the processor chip should be mitigated; and
[D.] mitigating the performance of the processor chip in response
to the temperature information,
[i.] wherein processing the temperature information and
mitigating the performance of the processor are
performed by the processor chip.

Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

3
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Jones US 3,643,245 Feb. 15, 1972
Black US 2005/0127490 A1 June 16, 2005
Chiu US 2007/0296071 A1 Dec. 27, 2007
Raravikar US 2012/0199830 A1 Aug. 9, 2012
Brown, et al. Cool Hand Linux® - Handheld Thermal Extensions, in
Linux Symposium 2007, vol. 1 (hereafter Brown).
Lee, et al., Carbon nanotube p-n junction diodes, Applied Physics
Letters, Vol. 85, No. 1; pp. 145–147; 5 July 2004 (hereafter Lee).
REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6–14, 16, 20, 22, 24–28, and 30,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu,
Raravikar, Brown, and Lee. Final Act. 5–36.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–10.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. Except for
our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of
claims 2, 6–14, 16, 20, 22, 24–28, and 30 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chiu, Raravikar, Brown, Lee, and
Jones. Final Act. 37–38.

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

4
The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu, Raravikar, Brown, Lee,
and Black. Final Act. 38–41.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 3, 15, and 23, Appellant
merely references the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for
“separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turn on our
decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 3, 15, and 23 further herein.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
A.
The Examiner’s rejection (as discussed in the Final Action and
Examiner’s Answer) presents two theories as to why the references teach or
render obvious using a temperature diode as a sensor. The first theory is
based on a combination of Chiu, Raravikar, Brown (thus eliminating any
need for the Lee reference), while the second theory is based on a
combination of Chiu, Raravikar, Brown, and Lee. The first theory relies on
paragraph 17 of Chiu.
CHIU fails to clearly specify . . . further wherein the temperature
sensor comprises a temperature diode (although see CHIU
[0017]).
Final Act. 6 (emphasis added); see also Final Act. 3, 10.
[P]rimary reference Chiu teaches temperature diodes (Chiu
[0017] “The thermal sensor according to embodiments may for
example include one of a thermal diode . . .” emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

5
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
The Examiner’s second theory relies on Lee to teach a temperature
diode.
Examiner notes that the above combination [of Chiu, Raravikar,
and Brown] does not appear to clearly specify that the sensor in
the location taught by RARAVIKAR “comprises a temperature
diode”; however, the build-up of CNT based rectifying p-n
diodes (a species of temperature sensitive diode) is known in the
art; see LEE page 145 (“In this letter, we describe the formation
of p-n junction diodes from a single SWNT [Single-walled
carbon nanotubes].”).
Final Act. 9 (emphasis added).
[S]econdary reference Lee teaches a process for creating carbon
nanotube p-n junction diodes, which Examiner maintains are
known to be suitable for application as a temperature diode.
Ans. 4.
The Examiner’s rejection uses the word “clearly” to indicate that that
Chiu does not explicitly recite the phrase “temperature diodes.” Final Act.
6. Ultimately however, the Examiner finds that Chiu “teaches temperature
diodes.” Ans. 4.
B.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The cited art does not teach or suggest, the temperature
sensor comprises a temperature diode, as recited by claim 1. In
fact, no cited reference teaches a temperature diode and, for that
reason alone, the rejection should be reversed.
Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner noted a misstatement in the Appeal Brief that no
art of record teaches a temperature diode. Examiner’s Answer at
4, citing Appeal Brief at 8. For the sake of argument, even if
Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

6
Chiu were to teach a temperature diode, it would not fix the errors
in the rejections. The rejections explicitly state to use the CNT
diodes of Lee, and there is no assertion by the Examiner now to
substitute thermal diodes of Chiu for the CNT diodes of Lee.
Nor is there any reasoning provided by the rejections as why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented a
thermal diode of Chiu in the claimed location (“below a bottom-
most metal layer of the chip package.”). Thus, Chiu’s device is
not properly cited at page 4 of the Examiner's Answer, and it does
not negate any of the points made by Appellant.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Chiu teaches using a temperature diode to sense
temperature of a chip package that includes a processor chip. Chiu ¶¶ 17–
18.
To the extent that either (1) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or
(2) the Appellant’s arguments directed thereto, rely on the Lee reference, we
find these to be moot. For example, the arguments directed to combination
of the carbon nanotube devices of Raravikar with the carbon nanotube
technology of Lee (e.g., Reply Br. 3) are moot because the rejection theory
based on Chiu’s teaching of a temperature diode does not rely on Lee and
only relies on Raravikar to show a temperature sensor “is disposed below a
bottom-most metal layer of the chip package.” Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-000069
Application 14/860,127

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–3, 6–16, 20, 22–28,
and 30 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 6–16, 20, 22–28, and 30 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–14,
16, 20, 22,
24–28, 30
103 Chiu, Raravikar,
Brown, Lee
1, 2, 6–14,
16, 20, 22,
24–28, 30

3 103 Chiu, Raravikar,
Brown, Lee, Jones
3
15, 23 103 Chiu, Raravikar,
Brown, Lee, Black
15, 23
Overall
Outcome

1–3, 6–16,
20, 22–28,
30

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