Ex Parte CHOI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14257459 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/257,459 04/21/2014
26703 7590 08/02/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. (Marvell)
5445 CORPORA TE DRIVE
SUITE 200
TROY, MI 48098
Jinho CHOI
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.
MP3830.Cl 6916
EXAMINER
YANG,AMYX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
sstevens@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINHO CHOI, Y ANGSOO PARK, and WANFENG ZHANG 1
Appeal2017---006518
Application 14/257 ,459
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and BRIAND.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 as set forth on the Non-final
Office Action mailed April 7, 2016. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Marvell World Trade Ltd.
Appeal2017-006518
Application 14/257 ,459
1. A control signal circuit for estimating a current output from a
transformer, the control signal circuit comprising:
a converter circuit configured to (i) receive a signal
corresponding to a current input to the transformer and (ii) output,
over a half line cycle, a plurality of values corresponding to the
current output from the transformer, wherein
the half line cycle includes a plurality of switching cycles,
each of the plurality of switching cycles corresponds to
respective periods that the transformer is connected to and
disconnected from an input voltage in the half line cycle, and
the plurality of values includes (i) a first sample of the
current input to the transformer as sampled in a first switching cycle
of the plurality of switching cycles at a predetermined time relative
to a beginning of the first switching cycle and (ii) at least one
second sample of the current input to the transformer as sampled in
at least one second switching cycle of the plurality of switching
cycles at the same predetermined time relative to a beginning of the at
least one second switching cycle, such that each of the plurality of
values corresponds to a respective sample taken at the same
predetermined time within a respective switching cycle; and
an output current estimator configured to (i) accumulate the
values corresponding to the first sample and the at least one second
sample, (ii) determine an average value of the current output from
the transformer over the half line cycle using the accumulated values,
and (iii) output the average value of the current output from the
transformer over the half line cycle.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Piper
Shteynberg
Li
US 2008/0007982 Al
US 2010/0026208 Al
US 2012/0014148 Al
2
Jan. 10,2008
Feb.4,2010
Jan. 19,2012
Appeal2017-006518
Application 14/257 ,459
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Piper in view of Li.
2. Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Piper and Li as applied to claims 8 and
10 above, and further in view of Shteynberg.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellants have presented substantive arguments
for the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will
address them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
evidence on this record supports the Examiner's position in the record, for
the reasons provided by the Examiner in the record (which we incorporate
herein), with the following emphasis.
The Examiner recognizes that Piper does not teach the aspect of the
claims pertaining to:
the plurality of values includes (i) a first sample of the
current input to the transformer as sampled in a first switching
cycle of the plurality of switching cycles at a predetermined
time relative to a beginning of the first switching cycle and
(ii) at least one second sample of the current input to the
transformer as sampled in at least one second switching cycle
of the plurality of switching cycles at the same predetermined
time relative to a beginning of the at least one second switching
cycle, such that each of the plurality of values corresponds to a
respective sample taken at the same predetermined time within a
respective switching cycle.
3
Appeal2017-006518
Application 14/257 ,459
Non-Final Act. 6.
The Examiner relies upon Li for supplementing Piper in this regard.
Non-final Act. 6-7. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have specified the cycles being half line cycles and having a
plurality of switching cycle samples as taught by Li to improve the
sampling of Piper in order to provide a better sampling of values, and
thereby provide a more accurate estimate and anticipate errors. Non-
final Act. 7.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Li is directed to calculating an off
time, not determining an average value of current. Appeal Br. 14, Reply
Br. 4. Appellants submit that the entire purpose of Li sampling in the
disclosed manner is to calculate off time, not to determine an average
value of current output from a transformer over a half line cycle. Id.
Appellants' arguments concerning Li alone do not persuade us of error
because the Examiner's rejection is based on the combining the
teachings of Piper and Li. "Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
To the extent Appellants' are arguing that combining the
references' teachings is improper, we note that Appellants do not
specifically dispute the Examiner's statement made on page 7 of the
Non-final Office Action that the proposed modification of Piper
according to Li would provide a better sampling of values, and thereby
provide a more accurate estimate and anticipate errors. The Examiner's
4
Appeal2017-006518
Application 14/257 ,459
point being that sampling values in this manner among switching cycles
( whether it be for determining an average value of a current output or to
calculate off time) provides a more accurate estimate of the values being
measured. Because Appellants do not squarely address the Examiner's
stated reason to combine the teachings of these two references, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner must
completely ignore the actual teachings of Li to construct the combination
of Piper and Li. Reply Br. 4. Furthermore, absent supporting evidence as
to why the manner of sampling in Li is not applicable to Piper appears as
mere conclusory statement that is entitled to little, if any, probative weight.
See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We thus affirm Rejection 1. Appellants do not separately argue
Rejection 2, so we also affirm Rejection 2 for the same reasons that we
affirm Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 16-17.
DECISION
Each rejection is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5