Ex Parte Barnett

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

11015632 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAYMOND E. BARNETT
____________

Appeal 2009-001774
Application 11/015,632
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 30, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MASHID D. SAADAT
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 17.
The disclosed invention relates to a power on reset circuit (Fig. 3;
Spec. 3; Abstract).

Appeal 2009-001774
Application 11/015,632

2
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A power on reset circuit comprising:
a comparator;
a resistor string having a first end connected to a first supply node of
the comparator, a first tap point node coupled to a first input of the
comparator, and a second end coupled to a second input of the comparator;
and
a diode connected transistor device connected between the second end
of the resistor string and a second supply node of the comparator.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Carvajal US 4,939,442 July 3, 1990
Ting US 5,530,395 June 25, 1996
Bacrania US 5,541,538 July 30, 1996
Takai US 6,163,190 Dec. 19, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon the teachings of Ting.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Carvajal.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ting and Bacrania.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Carvajal and Bacrania.
Appeal 2009-001774
Application 11/015,632

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ting and Takai.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Ting, Bacrania, and Takai.
The Examiner rejected claims 8 to 10, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Carvajal and Takai.
Turning first to the anticipation rejections of claim 1, the Examiner
contends (Final Rej. 2, 3) that Figure 2 of Ting and Figure 2 of Carvajal both
show all of the power on reset circuit structure set forth in this claim.
Appellant argues (Br. 4, 5) that claim 1 is not anticipated by Ting as “[d]iode
connected transistor 21 and the supply node are not connected together . . .
because there are other components between them,” and that claim 1 is not
anticipated by Carvajal because “[t]he resistor string is not connected to the
supply node . . . because there are other components between them.” In
response, the Examiner contends that:
Not only does the claim language (e.g.,
comprising) allow for additional elements besides
the elements recited in the claim, the term
“connected” does not have the same limited
meaning as the term “directly connected[.]” The
term “connected” means “electrically connected by
a conductive path[,]” and therefore, two elements
that are “connected” may have other intervening
elements in the path between them as long as the
intervening elements do not block the flow of
current.
(Ans. 10, 11).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10) that the intervening elements
in Ting (i.e., the elements 22 and 23) allow current to flow between diode
Appeal 2009-001774
Application 11/015,632

4
connected transistor 21 and the ground supply node 42. We also agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 11) that the circuit elements 62, 48, 53, 41, 64, and 66
that are located between the resistor string R8, R9 and supply node VCC do
not impede current flow between the resistor string and the supply node.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 3, 4) that claim 1 is
anticipated by both of the applied references.
In summary, the anticipation rejections of claim 1 are sustained
because each and every limitation in claim 1 is found either expressly or
inherently in both of the cited references. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
The anticipation rejections of claims 2, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are sustained
because Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these
claims.
The obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 8 to 11, and 14 to 17 are
sustained because Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims.
The decision of the Examiner is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
KIS

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265