Ex Parte Braun

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

11673021 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/673,021 02/09/2007 Christoph Braun I438.182.101/IF02P149US 1880
25281 7590 10/29/2013
DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA
FIFTH STREET TOWERS
100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
LUU, AN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte CHRISTOPH BRAUN
______________

Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
Technology Center 2800
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally
rejecting claims 1, 6-10, 12-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Braun
(US 2004/0165661 A1). App. Br. 7; Ans. 3; see Final Office Action mailed
March 23, 2010, at 2. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner.
OPINION
Appellant discloses a method for pulse width modulation as specified
in independent claim 1, with reference to Specification Figure 1AB,
comprising at least the steps of generating a first pulse width modulated
pulse signal (Figure 1A, “A”), and generating a second pulse width
modulated pulse signal (Figure 1B, “B”), wherein a single pulse (pulse
Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
2
widths t2' + t5') of B is generated by merging a first (pulse width t2) and a
second (pulse width t5) pulse of A “such that a time duration of a logic high
state of a” single pulse of B corresponds to the sum of the respective time
durations of a logic high state of each of the first (pulse width t2) and second
(pulse width t5) pulses of A. App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x) (emphasis
supplied); Spec., e.g., 4:12 to 8:27. We determine independent claim 14 is
directed to a system comprising at least “a device” for pulse width
modulation comprising at least “a merger” which is capable of performing
the step of merging first and second pulses of pulse width modulate signal to
generate a single pulse of a pulse width modulated output signal which
corresponds to a method step of claim 1. App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x);
Spec., e.g., 7:22-27 (“an appropriate PWM [(pulse width modulator)]
mapper 15 illustrated in Figure 2”), 9:1 to 10: 21, Fig. 2 (PWM system 12).
We determine claim 23 is directed to a method for pulse width modulation
similar to the method of claim 1 but further specifies the steps of
“temporally mirroring alternating pulses of the series of pulses of” A and
“merging each temporally mirrored pulse of [A] with the immediately
preceding or the immediately following pulse of the series to form” B. App.
Br. 18 (Claims App’x); Spec., e.g., 4:20-25, 5:5 to 8:27, Fig. 1. We
determine dependent claims 7 and 8 modify claim 1 to include the same
steps as claim 23. App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner submits the methods for pulse width modulation of
claims 1 and 23 “are rejected for reciting method/steps derived from the
apparatus recited in” claim 14, contending that Braun’s system comprising a
device for pulse width modulation disclosed in Braun Figure 1 is identical in
function and operation to the system comprising a device for pulse width
Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
3
modulation disclosed in Specification Figure 2, thus describing to one
skilled in the art a device capable of merging first and second pulses of a
PWM pulse signal to generate a single pulse of a PWM pulse signal as
specified in claim 14. Ans. 3-4 (citing Braun ¶¶ 0031 (first five lines), 0032,
Fig, 1), 5-7. The Examiner finds Braun’s quantization device 13, along with
feedback loop 17, generates PWM pulse signals 13', and digital PWM
mapper device 15 merges first and second PWM pulse signals 13' into a
PWM output signal 15', that is, “many to one mapping,” which is an inherent
result of such a device that meets the limitation “the device comprising a
merger to merge” first and second pulses of a PWM pulse signal into a
single pulse of a PWM output signal of claim 14. Ans. 4 (citing Braun
¶¶ 0031, 0032, Fig. 1). In response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner
further finds “that mapper 15 of [Braun] and mapper 15 of the instant
application are identical in all respects such that the limitation ‘generating
one single pulse of a second pulse width modulated pulse signal … of the
first pulse width modulated pulse signal’ is fully anticipated.” Ans. 5.
In this respect, the Examiner compares Braun ¶ 0032 with
Specification page 9, lines 23 to page 10, line 2, finding that the passages
“clearly indicate identicalness between that of [Braun] and that of the
claimed invention of the instant application.” Ans. 5-6. The Examiner finds
that Braun ¶ 0032 would have disclosed that “‘[t]he ratio of the sampling
rate 12 of filter device 11 and the sampling rate 14 of the quantization device
13 is obtain from the resolution of the PWM signal 15' as 2N = sampling rate
12 /sampling rate 14, N corresponding to the number of bits of the
quantization device 13 and 2N corresponding to the number of pulse
widths.’” Ans. 5 (quoting Braun ¶ 0032). The Examiner further finds that
Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
4
Appellant discloses in the Specification the same ratio of the sample rate fSF
of filter 11 and sample rate fQ of quantizer 13. Ans. 6 (quoting Spec. 9:23
to 10:2; see Spec. Fig. 2).
We find Braun would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art
with respect to the digital PWM device illustrated in Figure 1, “[a]n output
signal 13' of the quantization device 13 is subsequently converted by a PWM
mapper device 15 into a digital PWM signal 15' with the time resolution
which is obtained from the amplitude quantization by the quantization
device 13,” and “the various amplitude values of the output signal 13' of the
quantization device 13 are converted into different pulse widths in the PWM
mapper device 15.” Braun ¶¶ 0031 (first five lines), 0032 (first three lines).
We find Braun further discloses that “[f]rom the sampling rate 14 of the
quantization device 13 there is obtained the constant pulse frequency of the
PWM signal 15', which is reduced by a factor of 2N with respect to the
sampling rate 12 of the filter device 11.” Braun ¶ 0032 (last sentence).
On this record, we agree with Appellant, for the reasons set forth in
the Briefs, that the Examiner erred in maintaining the rejection over Braun
as indeed, the Examiner has not established that as a matter of fact Braun
would have described to one skilled in the art a digital PWM system,
illustrated in Braun’s Figure 1, that in fact is identical in function and
operation to the PWM system 12, illustrated in Specification Figure 2, and
thus is inherently capable of performing the step of merging first and second
pulses of A into a single pulse of B as specified in claim 14. App. Br. 9-13;
Reply Br. 2-3. We particularly note Appellant’s contentions that Braun’s
PWM mapper 15 employs conventional PWM methods to produce
conventionally generated PWM pulse signal A, and that Braun does not
Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
5
describe a method of merging pulses of PWM pulse signal A into a single
pulse of PWM pulse signal B, including temporally mirroring every second
pulse of PWM pulse signal A. Reply Br. 2-3. Indeed, we find the evidence
in Braun relied on by the Examiner establishes that in fact Braun’s PWM
mapper 15 and not quantization device 13 generates PWM pulse signal A.
See, e.g., ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340,
1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Corp.,
651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); Therasence, Inc. v. Becton,
Dickinson and Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Sanofi-Synthelabo
v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed, Cir. 2008); In re Schreiber,
128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, in the absence of a pima facie case of anticipation, we
reverse the rejection of system claims 14-21 and of method claims 1, 6-9 and
23 over Braun under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Turning now to claim 10, we determine claim 10 specifies a device
comprising at least a pulse width modulation system comprising at least a
“mean for merging a first and second pulse of” A to generate a single pulse
of B with a specific “time duration of a logic low state.” App. Br. 16
(Claims App’x) (emphasis supplied). We further determine that the “means
for” clause in claim 10 invokes the strictures of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph. Thus, the Examiner has the burden in the first instance of
interpreting the “means for” clauses by determining the corresponding
structure for the “means for” clause in the Specification and equivalents
thereof in order to compare the thus claimed invention with the prior art.
See, e.g., In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en
Appeal 2011-005745
Application 11/673,021
6
banc) (“[T]he PTO was required by statute to look to Schuler’s specification
and construe the ‘means’ language recited in the last segment of claim 1 as
limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and
equivalents thereof.”). The Examiner has not carried this burden. Ans. 13;
see App. Br. 4.
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation, we
reverse the ground of rejection of claims 10, 12 and 13 over Braun under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

sld