Ex Parte Ginsberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10902656 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARK G. GINSBERG, EDWIN SURYAHUSADA,
and DONALD A. DAPKUS
____________________

Appeal 2010-008735
Application 10/902,656
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008735
Application 10/902,656

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 21-25 and 27-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows (Fig. 1 references
added):
21. An apparatus comprising:
an amplifier [12] having an input, an output, and an amplifier
state control input, wherein the amplifier state control input is adapted
to receive an on-state signal and an off-state signal;
an inverter [30] connected to the amplifier state control input
that provides a state indicating signal in response to the amplifier state
control input;
an RC time constant circuit [82, 84, 86, an 88] coupled to the
inverter and wherein the RC time constant circuit delays transition
between a first state and a second state;
an output level setting circuit [34, including Q2 and Q3]
connected to the RC time constant circuit and to the amplifier output,
wherein the output level setting circuit is adapted to apply a
predetermined voltage to the amplifier output when the state
indicating signal indicates that the amplifier is in the first state and to
disconnect the predetermined voltage from the amplifier output when
the state indicating signal indicates that the amplifier is in the second
state; and
an input level setting circuit [32, including Q4 and Q5]
connected to the inverter and to the amplifier input, wherein the input
level setting circuit is adapted to apply a bias voltage to the amplifier
input when the state indicating signal indicates that the amplifier is in
a first state and to disconnect the bias voltage from the at least one
amplifier input when the state indicating signal indicates that the
amplifier is in a second state.
Appeal 2010-008735
Application 10/902,656

3

Rejections on Appeal 1
The Examiner rejected claims 21-25 and 27-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tran (US
5,768,601), Sasaki (US 5,151,942), and Barmore (US 6,016,352).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the level of skill set forth by the
Examiner should be further limited to a person “who has no
practical design or engineering experience” (App. Br. 15) and that
such a person would not be able to combine the Tran, Sasaki, and
Barmore references (App. Br. 15).
2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Sasaki employs active
measurement of inputs to its amplifier to provide control” (App.
Br. 15) and such a person would not be able to combine the prior
art references in a functioning manner as “it would require
substantial reworking or redesigning of the circuits in Bardmore
[sic], Sasaki, and Tran, which is well beyond the level of ordinary
skill set forth by the Examiner” (App. Br. 16).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 21-25 and 27-34?

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 22-25 and 27-34. Except for
our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-008735
Application 10/902,656

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s current rejections in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Appellants’ above contentions attempt to limit the person of ordinary
skill in the art to a person “who has no practical design or engineering
experience” (App. Br. 15), but do not otherwise dispute the Examiner’s
finding that such a person “possesses a Bachelor’s level degree in Electrical
Engineering or Engineering Technology with a curriculum including
circuit analysis involving MOS and bipolar transistors.” (App. Br.
15)(emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the Examiner that a
person who possesses a Bachelor’s level degree in Electrical Engineering or
Engineering Technology with a curriculum including circuit analysis
involving MOS and bipolar transistors “would have understood the
teachings of Tran, Sasaki, and Barmore and would have been motivated ‘to
fit the teachings of these multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle’
(MPEP § 2141, 11., C.) in order to accumulate the preferred features of the
multiple audio amplifiers devices in one device.” (Final Rej. 4).
Appeal 2010-008735
Application 10/902,656

5

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 21-25 and 27-34
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 21-25 and 27-34 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25 and 27-34 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc