Ex Parte Ginggen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2010

11098071 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ALEC GINGGEN and ROCCO CRIVELLI
________________

Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: April 16, 2010
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral
argument was held on February 2, 2010.
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to:
Circuitry for automatically powering on and maintaining
activation of a powered down electronic component in a first
device in [radio frequency] RF communication with a second
device, wherein the first and second devices are preferably an
implantable medical device and an external control device,
respectively. The system including power logic circuitry for
generating a power on signal to automatically close a switch
and energize an otherwise powered off electronic device when
the power induced in the first device by external RF energy
transmitted in the RF communication signal exceeds a
minimum operating threshold of the power on logic circuitry.
The electronic component while powered by the power source
generates a hold signal and a second power signal that is
transmitted to the power on logic circuitry to sustain power to
the electronic component irrespective of interruptions of
relatively short duration for less than a predetermined period of
time in RF communication.
Abstract.
One embodiment of the invention is depicted in Figure 1 of
Appellants’ Specification.
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

3

Fig. 1 depicts an external device 105, such as a controller or computer,
in RF communication with an internal device 115, such as a drug
infusion pump or other implantable medical device (Spec. 3). The
RF/DC Converter 110 is depicted as transmitting both an RF Enable
Signal and also DC Power to the Power On Logic Circuitry 120.

Independent claim 1 is illustrative, reproduced below with the
disputed language italicized:
1. A system comprising:
a first device adapted to receive an RF communication signal,
the first device comprising:
a converter for converting the received RF communication
signal to a continuous voltage;
power on logic circuitry electrically connected to the converter,
the converter generating an RF enable signal when power induced in
the first device by external RF energy transmitted in the received RF
communication signal exceeds a minimum operating threshold of the
power on logic circuitry, the power on logic circuitry producing a first
power on signal in response to receiving the RF enable signal;
a power source; and
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

4
an electronic component that remains in a powered off state is
electrically connected to the power source via a switch that is opened
and remains closed in the presence of the first power on signal from
the power on logic circuitry.1

Claims 1, 5, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by US Patent 7,250,695 B2 [Connors].2
Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Connors.
Claims 4, 6-12, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Connors in view of US Patent 6,023,641 [Thompson].
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Connors in view of Thompson and US Patent 5,877,630 [Kraz].
The Examiner finds that Connors discloses the disputed claim
limitation (noted supra) because
power control circuit 116 includes a bias control circuit 203[,]
and circuit 212 of the passive tag outputs a bias voltage to the
power control circuit (see col. 3, lines 51-63). Biasing in
electronics is the method of establishing predetermined voltage
and/or currents at various points of a circuit to set an
appropriate operating point. Hence the signal induced by the
passive tag to the power control circuit has to reach a
predetermined voltage (minimum operating threshold) of the
bias control circuit 203 inside the power control circuit 116 to
activate the circuit.

1 We understand the last claim limitation as being intended to read, “an
electronic component that [normally] remains in a powered off state [and
that] is electrically connected to the power source via a switch that is
[normally] opened and [sic: but] remains closed in the presence of the first
power on signal from the power on logic circuitry.”
2 The Office communication mailed December 3, 2008 confirms the correct
grounds of rejection for each of the claims.
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

5
Ans. 4;3 see also, Ans. 15 (substantially repeating this position and
further clarifying that the Examiner interprets bias control circuit 203
of the power control circuit 116 as corresponding to the “power on
logic circuitry” of claim 1).
Appellants assert, inter alia, that Connors does not anticipate claim 1
because Connors fails to disclose the claim language,
the converter generating an RF enable signal when power
induced in the first device by external RF energy transmitted in
the received RF communication signal exceeds a minimum
operating threshold of the power on logic circuitry, the power
on logic circuitry producing a first power on signal in response
to receiving the RF enable signal.

(App. Br. 6-12, citing claim 1 (emphasis added in App. Br.)). Appellants
further urge that the Specification “defines the term ‘minimum operating
threshold of the power on logic circuitry’ as ‘when the power induced in the
implantable medical device is sufficient to operate the power on logic
circuitry 120.’ {Specification: p. 4, ll. 11-13}” (App. Br. 7). But
Connors et al. is silent regarding the minimum operating
threshold of the power control circuit 116. The minimum
operating threshold of the power control circuit 115 itself is of
no concern in Connors et al. since the power control circuit 116
in Connors et al. remains powered on at all times by the internal
power source 114.
(Id.; Reply Br. 5). Rather, Connors’s passive tag 120 generates an
output signal for placing the power control circuit 116 in the power-on
state merely whenever the tag is in close enough proximity to the

3 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s or Appellants’ positions in their entirety,
we refer to the following documents for their respective details: (1) the
Appeal Brief filed August 5, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
October 29, 2008; and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 26, 2008.
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

6
reader for the reader to generate a field of sufficient strength to induce
a current in the passive tag (App. Br. 8).

ISSUES and ANALYSIS
I.
The first issue is: Does Connors disclose, as set forth in claim 1,4 a
first device having a converter and power on logic circuitry, the converter
generating an RF enable signal when power induced in the first device by
external RF energy transmitted in the received RF communication signal
exceeds a minimum operating threshold of the power on logic circuitry?
Resolving this issue depends on how the claim term “minimum operating
threshold of the power on logic circuitry” is interpreted. See In re Geerdes,
491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974) (instructing that “[b]efore considering
the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the scope of] the claims . . . .”).
We conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim term
consistent with the Specification requires that the RF energy induced within
the first device exceed a level necessary to power the power on logic
circuitry – not merely exceed a level necessary to signal the power on logic
circuitry.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re

4 Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 16 together as a group (App.
Br. 6), making no separate arguments regarding dependent claim 5 (see App.
Br. 6-21; Reply Br. 4-8). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of claims 1, 5 and 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

7
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). However, “interpreting what
is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an
extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In
re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellants’ Specification defines the minimum operating threshold of
the power on logic circuitry to be “when the power induced in the
implantable medical device is sufficient to operate the power on logic
circuitry 120” (Spec. 4:11-13 (emphasis added)). Unfortunately, this
definition does not unambiguously resolve the matter, because “sufficient to
operate the power on logic circuitry 120” could, in turn, mean either (1)
sufficient to power the power on logic circuitry (e.g., sufficient to provide a
Vcc or Vdd power supply level); or (2) sufficient to input a signal to the
power on logic circuitry (e.g., sufficient to provide a gate voltage that
activates a separately-powered transistor).
However, the Specification provides additional indications as to the
intended meaning of the claim term, “minimum operating threshold”:
As described above, in order to conserve the limited energy of
the power source 130, power used to energize the RF/DC
converter 110 and power logic circuitry 120 is preferably drawn
from the external RF energy during communication from the
external device to the implantable medical device 115. If
communication from the external device 105 ceases, even for a
relatively short period of time, then the external RF energy used
to power the RF/DC converter 110 and power logic circuitry
120 will cease as well.
Spec. 5 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Specification indicates that the
RF/DC Converter 110 provides both signals (Fig. 1, solid RF Enable Signal
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

8
line) and power (Fig. 1, dashed DC Power line) to Power On Logic Circuitry
120 (Spec. 3-4; Fig. 1).
Reading the Specification as a whole, then, we conclude that “the
minimum operating threshold of the power on logic circuitry,” as recited in
claim 1, is intended to refer to the level required to power the claimed power
on logic circuitry – not the voltage level necessary to provide an input signal
to the power on logic circuitry.
II.
Having determined the meaning of the claim term, “minimum
operating threshold,” we further note that claim 1 does not require that the
RF energy, which is transmitted to the first (e.g., implantable) device,
actually power either the converter or the power on logic circuitry. Rather,
the claim merely states that the converter generates an RF enable signal
when the induced power of the RF energy exceeds the level required to
power the logic on circuitry. As such, claim 1 would read on a system
(assuming all other claim limitations are satisfied) wherein the power of the
received RF communication signal exceeds the level required to power the
logic on circuitry, regardless of whether the power on logic circuitry (and/or
the RF/DC converter) is powered by the RF communication signal, or
alternatively, by some other power source (e.g., by a battery included within
the implantable device).
Also noteworthy, one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic circuits
would have been aware that the voltage required for an input signal to a
circuit does not necessarily have to be the same as the voltage required to
power the circuit. That is, the voltage level required for signaling a circuit
may be lower than the voltage level required to power the circuit.
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

9
Taking the foregoing into account, the second issue before us is: Does
Connors disclose that the RF energy received at the passive tag 120 from the
reader 122 exceeds a minimum operating threshold of the bias control circuit
203? That is: Does Conners disclose that the received RF energy is
sufficient to power the bias control circuit 203? We find that insufficient
evidence exists to conclude that Connors discloses this limitation.
Figure 2 of Connors depicts a block diagram of an apparatus that
includes a power control circuit operable to connect and disconnect a power
source from a circuit (col. 1, ll. 54-56; col. 2, ll. 31-34).

Figure 2 depicts an electronic device 110 may be awakened from an off
state by receiving a signal from external reader 122 (col. 3, ll. 20-21).
Electronic device 110 includes a passive tag 120 and a power control
circuit 116. Power control circuit 116, in turn, includes bias control
circuit 203 and switch 206 (col. 3, ll. 51-53).

Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

10
Connors discloses:
The switch 206 is driven by a signal from the passive tag
120. For example, the passive tag 120 is energized by a
magnetic field [or RF energy] generated by the reader 122. . .
The circuit 212 of the passive tag 120 outputs a signal, such as
a bias voltage, to the power control circuit 116. . . .
In this embodiment, the passive tag 120 generates the
output signal for placing the power control circuit 116 in the
power-on state in response to the passive tag 120 being in
proximity of the reader 122. . . .
The power control circuit 116 includes a bias control
circuit 203 that conditions the signal from the passive tag 120.
The output of the bias control circuit 203 is connected to the
switch 206. Thus the signal received from the passive tag 120
causes the switch 206 to close. If the switch 206 includes a
transistor, the signal is used to drive the transistor to the on
state (e.g., conducting from the source to the drain), 112. When
the switch 206 is in the on state, the power control circuit 116
is in the power-on state.
Connors, col. 3, l. 53 - col. 4, l. 40 (emphasis added). That is,
Connors discloses that the RF energy received from the reader is
sufficient to power the passive tag. However, Connors does not
disclose that the RF energy is sufficient to power either the power
control 116, generally, or in particular, the bias control circuit 203.
Rather, Connors indicates that once the RF energy powers the passive
tag 120, the passive tag merely sends an input signal 223 to the bias
control circuit that ultimately biases the gate of switch 206. We
understand Connors’ reference to the power control circuit 116 being
in the “power off state” as meaning the state in which the switch 206
of power control circuit 116 is opened – not that the power control
circuit 116, itself, is powered off.
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

11
We find no disclosure within Connors that would allow us to
conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the power of
input signal 223 exceeds the level that would be required to power the
control circuit 116; nor that (2) the RF energy required to power the
passive tag 120 would necessarily exceed the level required to power
the control circuit 116. That is, the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Connors discloses that “the
converter generat[es] an RF enable signal when power induced in the
first device by external RF energy transmitted in the received RF
communication signal exceeds a minimum operating threshold of the
power on logic circuitry.”
For the foregoing reasons, then, Appellants have persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1; claim 5 which depends therefrom; or independent claim 16 which
similarly sets forth the requirement that the converter generate an RF enable
signal when power induced in the first device by external RF energy
transmitted in the received RF communication signal exceeds a minimum
operating threshold of the power on logic circuit.
Regarding the obviousness rejection over Connors alone, the
Examiner rejects dependent claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 under the premise that it
would have been obvious to have modified Connor’s circuitry so as to
include two different signals for power and hold. The Examiner did not
provide any evidence or rationale for why it would have been obvious to
have provided an RF signal that exceeds a minimum operating threshold of
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

12
the power on logic circuitry. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 17, and 18.
With respect to the remaining rejection of claims 4, 6-15, and 19-21,
independent claims 6, 13, and 19, all similarly set forth the requirement that
the converter generate an RF enable signal when power induced in the first
device by external RF energy transmitted in the received RF communication
signal exceeds a minimum operating threshold of the power on logic circuit.
Neither Thompson nor Kraz cures the deficiencies of these obviousness
rejections that were explained above.
III.
The Examiner newly provides an alternative rationale for rejecting
claims 13-15 in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 20). Specifically, the
Examiner notes that in contrast to independent claim 1, independent claim
13 recites, inter alia,
power on logic circuitry electrically connected to the
converter, the converter generating an RF enable signal when
(i) power induced in the first device by external RF energy
transmitted in the received RF communication signal exceeds a
minimum operating threshold of the power on logic circuitry or
(ii) the power on logic circuitry receives a start self-test signal
from the first electronic component upon the expiration of a
periodic period of time for initiating self-testing sequencing to
ensure proper operation of at least one component of the first
device;
The Examiner interprets the “or” that is positioned between
claimed conditions (i) and (ii) as indicating that the converter only
need to possess means for performing one of the two claimed
conditions (Ans. 20). That is, the Examiner finds that Connors
Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

13
anticipates claim 13 because Connors discloses the RF energy exceeds
the minimum operating threshold, as was discussed supra, and it is
immaterial whether Connors additionally discloses means for
generating an RF enable signal in response to the expiration of a self-
testing sequencing.
We disagree with the Examiner’s construction of this claim
limitation. Read in light of the Specification (e.g., Spec. 7:21 – 9:12),
we find that the only reasonable interpretation is as follows: while an
RF enable signal will be generated when either one of the two
conditions occur, the claimed converter must possess the requisite
means for generating the RF enable signal upon either one of the
conditions occurring. That is, claim 13 requires that the converter
possesses both means.

DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections with respect to all
pending claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.

Appeal 2009-008975
Application 11/098,071

14

REVERSED

ke

CHERYL F. COHEN, LLC
2409 CHURCH ROAD
CHERRY HILL NJ 08002