Ex Parte Bonelli et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2009

10126142 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANDREA BONELLI and FRANCOIS BAUDIN
________________

Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided:1 June 22, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 6, 9, and 11.
The disclosed invention relates to a serial data link with an automatic
power down function that optimizes power consumption (Fig. 1; Spec. 1-2).
The serial data link includes a differential transmitter, a differential receiver,
and a bias generator (Fig. 1; Spec. 5-6; claim 1). The bias generator
generates a bias current for controlling output from the differential
transmitter, and generates a signal to the differential transmitter in response
to a received power-down control signal (Spec. 5; claim 1).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and reads as
follows (emphasis added):
1. A serial data link comprising:
a differential transmitter for transmitting data using
differential signals and for transmitting a predetermined output
not used for data transmission when the differential transmitter
is in a power-down state;
a differential receiver coupled to the differential
transmitter for receiving data using differential signals and for
detecting the predetermined output from the differential
transmitter in order to disable selected circuitry while data is
not being transmitted by said differential transmitter;
a bias generator coupled to said differential transmitter
for generating a bias current for controlling the output of said
differential transmitter; and
wherein said bias generator receives a power-down
control signal and generates a signal to said differential
transmitter responsive to said power-down control signal.
(Claim 1 (emphasis added)).

Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chan US 6,259,745 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Wells US 6,317,839 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Kuo US 2002/0075051 A1 Jun. 20, 2002
(filed Dec. 20, 2000)
Mages US 2003/0038676 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
(filed Aug. 27, 2001)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Wells, Kuo, and Mages.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Wells, Kuo, Mages, and Chan.
Independent claim 1 recites a bias generator that “receives a power-
down control signal and generates a signal to said differential transmitter
responsive to said power-down control signal” (claim 1). The Examiner
relies on Mages as disclosing the bias generator and power-down control
signal as set forth in claim 1 (Ans. 5). More specifically, the Examiner relies
on Mages as teaching a power-down control signal applied to a bias current
causing a bias generator to generate a bias current applied to a transmitter
responsive to the power-down control signal (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue, inter alia, the applied reference to Mages fails to
teach or suggest the “wherein . . .” clause of claim 1, which recites a bias
generator that “receives a power-down control signal and generates a signal
to said differential transmitter responsive to said power-down control signal”
(Br. 8-9) (see supra emphasized portion of claim 1).
With respect to the bias generator recited in claim 1, Mages fails to
teach a bias generator that receives a power-down control signal, and
therefore also fails to teach a bias generator that generates a signal in
Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142

4
response to the power-down control signal. In Mages (see e.g., Fig. 3),
current mirror 3 outputs a variable current, IVARIABLE, in response to the input
of bias current signal 2 from the bias generator (Mages, ¶ [0002]). A fixed
bias current, IFIXED, passes through power down control block 3D and is
added to the variable current in summing junction 3E to form bias current,
ISUM (Mages, ¶ [0021]). The bias current is then applied to the first stage
power amplifier 1A (Mages, ¶ [0021]).
When the bias control current signal 2 goes to zero, the power down
control block 3D senses the current drop and shunts the fixed bias current to
a current sink, diverting it away from summing junction 3E (Mages, ¶
[0023]). As such, no current enters summing junction 3E when the bias
control current 2 drops to zero. Restated, Mages’ power down control
circuit responds to the absence of a received control current 2 by terminating
the transmission of the fixed signal. Therefore, Mages’ bias generator and
power down control signal do not function in the manner set forth in claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner’s conclusion that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [the] invention was
made to use the power down control signal as an input for the bias
generator” (Ans. 5) is not otherwise supported by the teachings or
suggestions of Mages. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Mages fails
to teach a bias generator that receives a power-down control signal and
generates a signal to the transmitter in response to the power-down control
signal is convincing.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 11, which each
ultimately depend from claim 1, the Examiner relies upon Mages’s bias
generator and power down control circuit block 3D (disclosed at ¶ [0023]
Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142

5
and Fig. 3) as teaching the recited bias generator and power down control
signal of claims 9 and 11 (Ans. 7). Thus, Appellants’ argument (Br. 8-9)
that Mages fails to teach the bias generator and power-down control signal
as set forth in claims 9 and 11 is persuasive for the same reasons as
discussed supra with regard to claim 1.
Inasmuch as the bias generator of Mages does not receive a power-
down control signal and generate a signal to the transmitter in response to
the power-down control signal, the combined teachings of the references
lack a bias generator and power-down control signal as set forth in all of the
claims on appeal. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 6 is not
sustained because the applied references neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed subject matter, and
because the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the teachings of
Mages with the other applied references does not support a legal conclusion
of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 11 is not sustained because
the teachings of Chan do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of
Wells, Kuo, and Mages. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-002501
Application 10/126,142

6

babc

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
PO BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265