Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

14173241 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/173,241 02/05/2014
102469 7590 04/02/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13-SC-1518-USOl 5226
EXAMINER
WANG, YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR CHEN, JESSE MAX GUSS, CRAIG ROSS,
KEVIN WONG, and JASON KWOK-SAN LEE 1
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The real party in interest is identified as Nvidia Corporation. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an integrated circuit detection circuit for a
digital multi-level strap. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit based detection circuit for determining a
strap value, comprising:
a first receiver including transistors having first electrical
characteristics that define a first threshold for said first receiver,
said first receiver operable to generate a first binary digit based
on an input signal and said first threshold; and
a second receiver including transistors having second
electrical characteristics that differ from said first electrical
characteristics and define a second threshold for said second
receiver that is lower than said first threshold, said second
receiver operable to generate a second binary digit based on said
input signal and said second threshold, said first and second
binary digits indicating whether said strap value lies above said
first threshold, between said first and second thresholds or below
said second threshold.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bugeja
Huang
Chowdhury
US 6,661,365 Bl
US 2011/0140947 Al
US 2012/0257650 Al
2
Dec. 9, 2003
June 16, 2011
Oct. 11, 2012
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang and Bugeja. Final Act. 4--9.
Claims 7 and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Bugeja, and Chowdhury. Final Act. 10-13.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. In connection with independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Appellants contend
a. Bugeja's transistors have an intrinsic switching threshold that
depends on an applied well bias voltage not a threshold defined by
an electrical characteristic of the transistors. Br. 6-7.
b. Appellants contend Bugeja's threshold is externally determined by
a corresponding transistor circuit not by the electrical
characteristics of the transistor of the receiver, i.e., self-defined by
the transistor having the desired threshold. Br. 7.
c. Appellants contend the combination of Huang and Bugeja is
improper because
1. Huang's externally-defined threshold voltages teach away
from electrical characteristics of the transistors defining the
thresholds of the receivers incorporating those transistors.
Br. 8.
11. Modifying Huang's analog-to-digital converter to use
internally defined thresholds of the receivers would require a
reconstruction and redesign of Huang's device constituting
an impermissible change in its principle of operation. Id.
3
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
2. In connection with independent claim 15, Appellants additionally
contend the combination of Huang, Bugeja, and Chowdhury is improper
because, contrary to the reasons articulated by the Examiner, "the
proposed modification would not allow the modified device of Huang
and Bugeja to monitor its temperatures at various locations and hence
reduce the possibility of thermal damage and increase its reliability." Br.
12-13.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Except as may be discussed below, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-12) and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief (Ans. 13-16) and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Bugeja's description of pairs of sensing
transistors having common physical dimensions but varying intrinsic
switching thresholds teaches or suggests a switching threshold determined
by the electrical characteristics of the transistors as recited by claim 1. Final
Act. 6. Appellants contend the threshold ofBugeja's transistors are
dependent on an externally applied well bias voltage, not by electrical
characteristics of the subject transistors themselves, i.e., electrical
characteristics of the receiver transistors. Br. 6-7.
4
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
We construe claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of
the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The broadest reasonable interpretation is
assessed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364. In determining the
broadest reasonable interpretation, it can be appropriate to consult a
dictionary definition for guidance. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d
1056, 1062---63 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition of the disputed
transistor electrical characteristics. Instead, Appellants direct attention to
paragraph 22 of the Specification for support of this limitation. Br. 4.
Therein the Specification discloses a relationship between the conduction
parameter K and transistor parameters including material and physical
features (e.g., mobility and gate size). However, there is no indication that
the disputed electrical characteristics of claim 1 are either equivalent to
conduction parameter K or limited to the related parameters as disclosed.
Thus, in the absence of a specific definition appearing in the Specification,
we look to a general dictionary for guidance in determining the meaning of
the term "characteristic." A definition of a characteristic is "[a]
distinguishing feature or attribute. " 2 Thus, a broad but reasonable
2 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 226
(Morris ed., 1981).
5
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
interpretation of the disputed "electrical characteristic" includes a
distinguishing feature or attribute concerning an electrical functioning of the
recited transistors.
Applying this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner (see Final
Act. 6) in finding Bugeja's sensing transistors having intrinsic switching
thresholds teach or suggest the disputed transistors having electrical
characteristics (i.e., include a distinguishing electrical feature) that define a
corresponding threshold.
Bugeja discloses, in connection with "an illustrative embodiment," the
fabrication of transistor circuits "so that each transistor circuit ... has a
switching threshold determined by intrinsic switching thresholds of at least
one sensing transistor in a corresponding transistor circuit." Bugeja col. 1,
11. 34--38. Bugeja further discloses "[t]he sensing transistors in a set of
transistor circuits of the array can be fabricated to have common physical
dimensions even though corresponding intrinsic switching thresholds of the
transistor circuits can vary." Bugeja col. 1, 11. 38--42. Alternatively,
Bugeja' s specification continues with the description of "another
embodiment ... includ[ing] sensing transistors that have intrinsic switching
thresholds that change depending on an applied reference voltage." Bugeja
col. 1, 11. 46--49. Thus, contrary to Appellants' argument presented in
support of contention l(a) (Br. 6-7), one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that the transistors of Bugej a' s illustrative embodiment
have intrinsic thresholds that do not depend on an applied reference voltage,
unlike the transistors of Bugeja's alternate embodiment.
Furthermore, Bugeja discloses "each sensing transistor in the array
can be fabricated so they are substantially the same size with each other even
6
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
though corresponding intrinsic thresholds of the circuits vary." Bugeja col.
2, 11. 1--4. Thus, one skilled in the art would have understood that Bugeja's
transistors have differing desired thresholds as an effect of electrical
characteristics resulting from the fabrication process as an alternative to and,
therefore, not as a result of different reference voltages being applied.
We further note Bugeja describes sensing transistors having "intrinsic
switching thresholds." Bugeja col. 1, 11. 34--38. A definition of intrinsic
includes "[p ]ertaining to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. " 3 Thus,
one skilled in the art would have understood Bugeja's intrinsic switching
thresholds of its sensing transistors to be an inherent characteristic of the
subject transistors rather than partially or wholly dependent upon external
factors such as applied voltages.
Because, for the reasons discussed above, Bugeja teaches sensing
transistors having intrinsic switching thresholds that are not dependent on
externally applied voltages, Appellants' contention l(a) is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Appellants' contention l(a) is further unpersuasive as premised on
limitations not recited by the claims. That is, Appellants' contention appears
to be based on a requirement that only the physical attributes of the
transistors are responsible for setting or defining the transistor threshold to
the exclusion of other factors such as applied signals or voltages. However,
consistent with our interpretation of the disputed limitation, claim 1 does not
limit "electrical characteristics" to physical properties of the transistors.
Thus, to the extent Appellants argue against Bugeja's alternate embodiment
in which the intrinsic switching thresholds of the switching transistors are
3 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE at 687.
7
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
varied by an applied reference voltage (Bugeja col. 1, 11. 46-49), such
argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of error by
Appellants' contention l(a). Furthermore, because we find Bugeja discloses
the fabrication of sensing transistors having desired intrinsic switching
thresholds that are not dependent on externally applied voltages (see
discussion above), we disagree with and find unpersuasive Appellants'
contention 1 (b ). See Br. 7.
In connection with contention 1 ( c )(i), Appellants argue that because
Huang discloses externally-defined threshold voltages, Huang teaches away
from Bugeja's sensing transistors having intrinsic switching thresholds. Br.
8. We disagree. To teach away, the prior art must "criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Teaching an alternative method does not teach away
from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438
(CCPA 1965); see also Ex parte Shuping, No. 2008-0394, 2008 WL 336222,
at *2 (BPAI 2008) (unpublished) ("[T]eaching a way is not teaching away."
(citation omitted)); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(holding that merely "express[ing] a preference" falls short of discouraging
one of ordinary skill in the art from following a particular path). Appellants
do not identify any teaching in Huang that disparages substituting sensing
transistors having intrinsic switching thresholds for those having externally-
defined thresholds or otherwise affirmatively discourages its use as claimed.
Furthermore, as discussed above, Bugeja discloses transistors having
intrinsic switching thresholds as an alternative embodiment to an
embodiment with transistors having externally-defined voltages. See Bugeja
8
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
col. 1, 11. 34--42. Thus, one skilled in the art, rather than being dissuaded
from making the combination, would have appreciated the interchangeability
of one technique for defining a transistor switching threshold (e.g., using an
externally applied voltage) with another (e.g., transistors having intrinsically
defined switching thresholds).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' contention 1 ( c )(ii) arguing
modifying Huang's analog-to-digital converter to use internally defined
thresholds would require a reconstruction and redesign of Huang's device,
constituting an impermissible change in its principle of operation. Br. 8. In
particular, Appellants provide insufficient evidence or reasoning in support
of this argument.
Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir.
1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take the place of evidence
lacking in the record. Furthermore, contrary to Appellants' contention, we
note the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007); see also Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Combining two embodiments disclosed
adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of
inventiveness."). Here, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner's
proffered combination in support of the conclusion of obviousness would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
9
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419--21).
In connection with contention 2, Appellants allege error in the
Examiner's reasoning for combining Huang, Bugeja, and Chowdhury in
rejecting independent claim 15. Br. 12-13. In rejecting claim 15 the
Examiner finds
It would have been obvious ... to use the IC based
detection circuit (taught by Huang in view of Bugeja) as part of
a GPU and installed on a PCB (taught by Chowdhury) ... "to
allow the temperature of each of the devices to be monitored at a
plurality of locations" ([Chowdhury] i-f 27), and "to reduce the
possibility of thermal damage and to increase reliability of the
semiconductor devices" ([Chowdhury] i-f 3).
Final Act. 10-11. Appellants contend the Examiner's reasoning is
inadequate because "the proposed modification would not allow the
modified device of Huang and Bugeja to monitor its temperatures at various
locations and hence reduce the possibility of thermal damage and increase its
reliability." Br. 12-13. Appellants argue:
The strap-circuitry is not a device for measuring temperatures of
the circuitry at various locations as the Examiner's motivation
assumes. Indeed, the Examiner's motivations appear to be
motivation for Chowdhury to employ on-chip temperature sensor
(see, e.g. par. 3 of Chowdhury). As such, the Examiner's
motivations are not proper motivation for modifying the applied
teaching of Huang and Bugeja with the teaching of Chowdhury
to arrive at the claimed invention.
Br. 13.
Chowdhury discloses a graphics processing unit (GPU) 125 including
temperature sensors 199 (Fig. 1) for monitoring device temperature.
Chowdhury i-fi-122, 27 (cited in Final Act. 10-11 ). Huang discloses using an
10
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
analog-to-digital converter to convert analog temperature information into
digital data. Huang i-f 4. Possessing these teachings, one skilled in the art
would have been prompted to improve Chowdhury's temperature sensors
using Huang's analog-to-digital converter in order to provide a digital output
and enhanced resolution of temperature data and, as found by the Examiner,
to allow temperature monitoring at a plurality of locations, reducing the
possibility of thermal damage. Ans. 16. Thus, we conclude it would have
been obvious to modify Chowdhury's GPU to include the analog-to-digital
converter of Huang including sensing transistors as disclosed by Bugeja to
monitor Chowdhury's device temperature and avoid thermal damage.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's rationale for combining the reference is inadequate or
unsupported.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1 and 15,
and for the same reasons, independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
together with the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20,
which are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Appeal2017-009581
Application 14/173,241
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12