Ex Parte Kalia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

14928268 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/928,268 10/30/2015
23494 7590 12/21/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sachin Kalia
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.
TI-75417 8830
EXAMINER
SHIN, JEFFREY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SACHIN KALIA, BRADLEY A. KRAMER, and
SWAMINATHAN SANKARAN
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 24--28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed October 30, 2015, amended
April 14, 2016; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated January 25, 2017;
Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed June 26, 2017; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") dated September 26, 2017; and Appellant's Reply Brief
("Reply Br.") filed November 21, 2017.
2 Appellant is Applicant, Texas Instruments Incorporated, which the Appeal
Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a voltage controlled oscillator.
Spec. ,r 3. Claims 1 and 24---the only independent claims on appeal-are
reproduced below:
1. A voltage controlled oscillator for providing an
oscillating output signal, comprising:
a first inductor, wherein the oscillating output signal is
responsive to a changing current through the first inductor;
a second inductor, proximate the first inductor,
electrically connected to a first cross-coupling stage; and
a third inductor, proximate the first inductor, electrically
connected to a second cross-coupling stage.
24. A voltage controlled oscillator for providing an
oscillating output signal, comprising:
a first inductor, wherein the oscillating output signal is
responsive to a changing current through the first inductor;
a second inductor, proximate the first inductor,
electrically connected to a first cross-coupling stage having a
plurality of nMOS transistors;
a third inductor, proximate the first inductor, electrically
connected to a second cross-coupling stage having a plurality of
pMOS transistors;
a biasing circuitry coupled to an intermediate tap
between a first tap and a second tap of at least one of the first
inductor, the second inductor, and the third inductor to bias the
first, second, and third inductors separately.
App. Br. 12, 15 (Claims Appendix).
Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 24.
2
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a)( 1) as anticipated by Ma. 3
II. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ma and Pemia. 4
III. Claims 11, 12, 24, and 27 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ma and Atesoglu. 6
IV. Claims 25, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ma, Atesoglu, and Pemia.
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues the claims as a group, directing the arguments to
claim 1. See App. Br. 4--8. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims
2-3, 6, 9, and 13-15 stand or fall with claim 1.
Relevant to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Ma describes a voltage controlled oscillator that includes first, second, and
third inductors, each electrically connected to an associated capacitor to
form a coupled LC tank architecture, with first and second nodes of the
coupled LC tank architecture being electrically connected to first and second
3 US 2013/0307630 Al, published November 21, 2013 ("Ma").
4 US 2009/0146750 Al, published June 11, 2009 ("Pemia").
5 Claims 24 and 27 are omitted from the Examiner's statement of the
Rejection (Final Act. 9), but are expressly addressed in the body of the
Rejection (id. at 10-11) and included in the Examiner's restatement of the
Rejection in the Answer (Ans. 7).
6 US 2015/0280645 Al, published October 1, 2015 ("Atesoglu").
3
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
2
FIG. 3
L ..1
1
. • , J
F'tA l t -.-., .,...._.......·i P~a
r-i /;><-.":-
()! - ::· _ Ol:Jl~n
.-_;./'~~--
'iMd j-,/ / ~ ~,tJ
L .. ' ...... ----,----·····--------
"'
i3J
FIG.SC
Figure 3 is a circuit diagram depicting a strong magnetic and electric
coupled LC tank circuit architecture. Ma ,r 13. Figure 5C is a circuit
diagram of a voltage controlled oscillator circuit using the coupled LC tank
architecture shown in Figure 3. Id. ,r 47.
Appellant argues that Ma's LC tank circuit includes magnetic
connections between the various inductors, rather than electrical
connections. App. Br. 4-5 (citing Ma ,r 35). Appellant contends, "[s]ince
there is no electrical connection between the inductors, a second inductor ...
or a third inductor ... cannot be electrically connected to any cross coupling
stage in Ma." Id. at 5.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner explains,
Ma's Figure 3 depicts a circuit Tl, formed by plurality N of LC tank circuits
LCTO-LCTN. Ans. 13; Ma Figure 3, ,r 35. Each LC tank circuit includes
an inductor electrically connected to a capacitor, which in tum is electrically
4
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
connected to a capacitor of another LC tank circuit within the overall
structure Tl. Ma ,r 35. Appellant acknowledges the foregoing connections
in Ma. See App. Br. 6 ("If the Examiner meant there is electrical connection
between inductor and a capacitor, that is correct to form an LC tank."); id. at
5 ("the electrical coupling is between the capacitive devices 308 of each of
the LC tank circuits 304") (quoting Ma ,r 35). Appellant does not challenge
the Examiner's finding that Ma further describes in Figure 5C that Tl is
electrically connected to first and second cross-coupling stages. Appellant's
argument that Ma's inductors are magnetically connected does not address
the Examiner's finding that all of the LC tank circuits-including the plural
inductors-also are electrically connected with the overall circuit Tl by
virtue of electrical connections between capacitors. Appellant does not
persuasively explain why Ma's description of additional magnetic
connections negates Ma's description of electrical connections within circuit
Tl and between circuit Tl and each of two cross-coupling stages.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error. Accordingly, Rejection I is sustained.
Rejection II
Appellant does not separately argue any aspect of Rejection II, except
an implicit reliance on the arguments raised in connection with claim 1.
Accordingly, Rejection II is sustained for the reasons given above in
connection with Rejection I.
Rejection III
With regard to Rejection III, Appellant presents the same arguments
that were raised in connection with Rejection I-namely, that the inductors
in Ma's circuit are not electrically connected to any cross coupling stage.
5
Appeal2018-001904
Application 14/928,268
App. Br. 8-10. Appellant also states, without detail or explanation, that the
Examiner "does not provide any rationale or reasoning to combine Ma and
Atesoglu." Id. at 10. Appellant's first argument is not persuasive for the
reasons given above in connection with Rejection I. Appellant's second
argument also is not persuasive. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had a reason to modify Ma in light of Atesoglu
"to improve signal accuracy and reduce noise." Final Act. 10. Appellant
does not identify or allege error in that finding.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of
reversible error. Rejection III is sustained.
Rejection IV
Appellant does not separately argue any aspect of Rejection IV,
except an implicit reliance on the arguments raised in connection with claim
24. Accordingly, Rejection IV is sustained for the reasons given above in
connection with Rejection III.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 24--28 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).
AFFIRMED
6