Ex Parte Hulbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11701051 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111701,051 02/01/2007
116 7590 06/30/2016
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801EAST9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pete Hulbert
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.
KEI-41783 7706
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
patdocket@peame.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETE HULBERT, MICHAEL RAYMAN,
TRISH GOTTLOB, RAJAT MEHTA, and JOHN LILIE
Appeal2014-009957
Application 11/701,051
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1---6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants' invention is directed to an apparatus and method to
generate pulse waveforms for testing (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Appeal2014-009957
Application 11/701,051
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for generating a pulse waveform, said method
compnsmg:
dividing a desired waveform into a plurality of line segments;
describing each line segment by at least a segment identification, a
segment initial value, and a segment duration to form a
digital waveform description;
providing said digital waveform description to a digitally
controlled pulse generator, said digitally controlled pulse
generator being operable to produce a waveform
corresponding to said digital waveform description in
response to said digital waveform description; and
outputting said produced waveform.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1---6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable
over Kojima (US 7,068,082 B2, issued June 27, 2006 ).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Kojima's "ON/OFF signal" which the Examiner
finds corresponds to the claimed "desired waveform" is not a desired
waveform within the meaning of the claims (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue
that Kojima's VO is a desired waveform. Id. Appellants contend that
Kojima does not teach the use of a digital waveform description by a
digitally controlled pulse generator to output a version of the desired
waveform. Id.
The Examiner's findings are located on page 2 of the Final Action.
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that the "ON/OFF signal" is a desired
waveform (Final Act. 2). The Examiner determines that the claim recites
2
Appeal2014-009957
Application 11/701,051
"generating a pulse waveform" and "a desired waveform" so that the pulse
waveform and desired waveform can be different (i.e., there are two
waveforms in the claim) (Ans. 4).
The method of claim 1 recites in relevant part:
dividing a desired waveform into a plurality of line segments;
describing each line segment by at least a segment identification, a
segment initial value, and a segment duration to form a digital
waveform description;
providing said digital waveform description to a digitally controlled
pulse generator ... to produce a waveform corresponding to said
digital waveform description in response to said digital waveform
description; and
outputting said produced waveform.
Claim 1 requires plainly that a desired waveform is provided and then
described by various descriptors to form a digital waveform description.
According to claim 1, the digital waveform description is then used to
produce a waveform that corresponds to the digital waveform description
and the produced waveform is then outputted. In other words, the produced
waveform is assembled from the digital waveform description of the desired
waveform and thus is a digital approximation of the desired waveform,
which uses line segments rather than points to create the description. Thus,
the produced waveform is related to the desired waveform and is not as the
Examiner finds two different waveforms. Our understanding of the claim is
supported by the Specification i-fi-1 9-11.
The Examiner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification
that supports a claim construction that requires two different waveforms, i.e.,
a "pulse waveform" and a "desired waveform." Ans. 4. Rather, the claim
requires using a desired waveform to assemble a digital waveform
3
Appeal2014-009957
Application 11/701,051
description, which is then used by a pulse generator to assemble a waveform
based upon the desired waveform description (i.e., to form a copy of the
desired waveform). Further, Kojima's "ON/OFF signal" is not a "desired
waveform." As shown by Kojima's Figure 2, the "ON/OFF signal" as shown
in part (a) of Figure 2 is modified until the desired waveform VO is obtained.
As noted by Appellants, the "ON/OFF signal" waveform and the VO
waveform have very little similarity (App. Br. 5).
As the Examiner has not established that Kojima teaches the subject
matter of claim 1 within the meaning of35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we reverse the
Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
4