14646809 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2018)

Ex Parte Giuliano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 16, 2018

14646809 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/646,809 05/22/2015 David Giuliano 69713 7590 10/18/2018 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP 321 Summer St. Boston, MA 02210 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. 30096-006US 1 3395 EXAMINER BEHM, HARRY RAYMOND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2838 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2018 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): INFO@ORPATENT.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID GIULIAN0 1 Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 45---63 and 65-68. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Peregrine Semiconductor Corp., which is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1 ). 2 Although the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief lists claim 69, the Examiner clarifies that improperly numbered claim 69 (filed January 18, 2017) was renumbered as claim 68 in the Final Office Action (Final Action dated February 14, 2017) (Ans. 3). Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 We AFFIRM. Appellant claims a voltage multiplier apparatus comprising switches (22A), first and second charge storage networks (24A and 28A), a phase pump ( 6A 1 ), and a capacitor network comprising a plurality of capacitors, wherein the capacitor network comprises at least one of the first and second charge storage networks (independent claim 45, Figs. 5A and 5B; see also remaining independent claim 62). Further details of the claimed apparatus are set forth in the following copy of representative claim 45 which is taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 45. An apparatus comprising a voltage multiplier configured to cause a voltage at a first port thereof to be a multiple of a voltage at a second port thereof, said voltage multiplier compnsmg a first plurality of switches, first and second charge storage networks, both of which are coupled to said first plurality of switches, a first phase pump coupled to said first charge storage network, a capacitor network comprising a plurality of capacitors, each of which has a first terminal and a second terminal, said first terminals of said capacitors being coupled to selected nodes between pairs of said switches, 2 Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 wherein said first plurality of switches comprises a first switch having a terminal that is connected to said first port and a second switch having a terminal that is connected to said second port, wherein said plurality of capacitors comprises a first capacitor, a second capacitor, and a third capacitor, wherein said first capacitor is coupled to said one of said first phase pump and said second port through said second capacitor, wherein said second capacitor has a second terminal that is DC coupled to said one of said first phase pump and said second port,and wherein said third capacitor has a second terminal that is DC coupled to said one of said first phase pump and said second port,and wherein at least one of said first and second charge storage networks comprises said capacitor network. App. Br. 35-36 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects claims 45--49, 51, 52, 62, 63, and 65---68 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Oraw (US 2009/0322384 Al, published Dec. 31, 2009) (Final Action 6-10) and rejects remaining claims 50 and 53- 61 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Oraw (id. at 12-14). We sustain these rejections for the reasons well stated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer with the comments below added for emphasis and completeness. 3 Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 In theÂ§ 102 rejection of claim 45, the Examiner finds that Oraw's Figure 1 C shows a voltage multiplier apparatus having a charge storage network Cl-C3, C5-C7, another charge storage network C4, a phase pump S7, S8 and a capacitor network Cl, C6-C7 comprising a plurality of capacitors as required by the claim (id. at 6-8). Appellant argues that the Examiner unreasonably construes Oraw's single capacitor C4 as a network (App. Br. 5-6). In response, the Examiner explains that "a single capacitor is an instance of a two terminal network, and a two terminal network is by definition a network" (Ans. 3). The Examiner's explanation is rational and persuasive. Moreover, Appellant fails to identify any claim language or Specification disclosure requiring the claimed charge storage network to have more than a single capacitor. Appellant also argues Oraw does not expressly or inherently disclose that the capacitors identified by the Examiner are charge storage networks (App. Br. 6-10) and that any such inherent disclosure in Oraw would not have been recognized by persons of ordinary skill (id. at 8). A pivotal deficiency of this argument is that Appellant does not meaningfully explain why it is erroneous to consider the identified capacitors of Oraw as reasonably capable of operating as charge storage networks. See Parker Vision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1361 4 Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[A] prior art reference may anticipate ... an apparatus claim ... if the reference discloses an apparatus that is reasonably capable of operating so as to meet the claim limitations, even if it does not meet the claim limitations in all modes of operation."). An additional deficiency is that inherent anticipation does not require recognition as Appellant incorrectly believes. See Schering Corporation v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[T]his Court rejects the contention that inherent anticipation requires recognition in the prior art."). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding that Oraw's apparatus satisfies the capacitor network and phase pump requirements of independent claim 45 (App. Br. 10-11) and the phase pump requirement of remaining independent claim 62 (id. at 14--15). These contentions lack persuasive merit for the reasons detailed by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7, 9-11). We emphasize that Appellant's Reply Brief does not address, and therefore does not show error in, the Examiner's reasomng. Analogously, Appellant's contentions directed to the dependent claims rejected underÂ§ 102 (App. Br. 12-16) and the remaining dependent claims rejected underÂ§ 103 (id. at 31-34) are unconvincing for the reasons given in the Answer (Ans. 7-9, 11-13). As above, these reasons are not even acknowledged much less disputed in the Reply Brief. 5 Appeal2018-002365 Application 14/646,809 For the reasons given above and by the Examiner, Appellant fails to show any reversible error in the Â§ 102 and Â§ 103 rejections of the appealed claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 45-63 and 65-68 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6