Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

11848501 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111848,501 08/31/2007
25700 7590 05/31/2016
FARJ AMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dong Young Lee
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.
0400342 3898
EXAMINER
MIDKIFF, AARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG YOUNG LEE and MIN FANG
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 8-16, and 19, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Rectifier
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 5-7, 17, and 18 have been canceled. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
INVENTION
The invention on appeal relates to a high voltage gate driver
integrated circuit with multi-function gating. See Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A high voltage gate driver circuit comprising:
a first driver receiving a first input signal and operable to
provide a first output voltage signal;
a second driver receiving a second input signal and
operable to provide a second output voltage signal;
circuitry, internal to said second driver, operable to
process the second output voltage signal to provide a processed
output voltage signal having different characteristics than the
first output voltage signal; and
a selection circuit, wherein, a single signal comprising one
of the first input signal and the second input signal determines
the selection of each of the first output voltage signal and the
processed output voltage signal as a gate drive signal at mutually
exclusive times.
REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 8-16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art in view of Yamazaki et al.
(US 2005/0093804 Al; published May 5, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments and evidence presented.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and 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 and rebuttals set forth in the Answer in
2
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
response to Appellants' arguments. (Ans. 2--4). However, we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner cites Figure 1 and i-f 4 of
Appellants' application as Applicant Admitted Prior Art ("AP A"). Final
Act. 5; Advisory Act. 2.
Appellants contend the cited portions of AP A and Yamazaki do not
disclose "a single signal comprising one of the first input signal and the
second input signal determines the selection of each of the first output
voltage signal and the processed output voltage signal as a gate drive signal
at mutually exclusive times," recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants
argue that Yamazaki uses a third input signal, a select signal, to selectively
couple either the output of C 1 or the ground signal to the signal line S 1. Id.
(citing Yamazaki i-fi-1142-144, Figs. 9, 10). By contrast, Appellants argue
that claim 1 "clearly delineates" the recited "single signal" as one of the first
input signal and the second input signal when read in light of the
Specification. Id. at 8 (citing Spec. i-fi-1 13, 15, 17, Fig. 2).
In response, the Examiner explains that "comprising" is an open-
ended term and thus the "single signal" recited in claim 1 may include an
unspecified number of additional signals, including the select signal of
Yamazaki. Ans. 3.
We decline Appellants' invitation to read "comprising" as a closed
term. Appellants chose to use the open-ended term "comprising," which is
synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," and does
not exclude additional, unrecited elements. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Comprising" is a term of art used in
claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other
3
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
claim.); see also MPEP § 2111.03. Thus, as long as the two recited input
signals are present in the cited art, Yamazaki' s select signal may
"determine[] the selection of each of the first output voltage signal and the
processed output voltage signal as a gate drive signal at mutually exclusive
times," as recited in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that 23 * and 23 '*
of AP A Figure 13 teach or suggest the recited first and second input signals,
respectively. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2.
Appellants also argue that neither AP A nor Yamazaki teaches or
suggests "a selection circuit providing a gate drive signal," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they address the teachings
of each reference alone, rather than addressing their combined disclosure.
See Ans. 3--4 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Appellants further argue that "[i]t is unclear as to how the selection
circuit D 1 in Figure 10 of Yamazaki can be combined with Figure 1 of the
present application." Id. The Examiner explained that an artisan of ordinary
skill would have understood that Vouta and the output of component 16 in
AP A Figure 1 are capable of being transmitted via time-divided
multiplexing using a single signal path in the same manner that Yamazaki
couples each of the output of Cl and the ground (shown in Figure 10) to a
common circuit for temporally mutually exclusive transmission. Final Act.
3 The Examiner used an asterisk [*] to denote numerals identifying features
in Figure 2 of Appellants' application that the Examiner used to identify
unnumbered features analogously present in Figure 1 of Appellants'
application. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2.
4
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
5---6; Ans. 4. Moreover, the Examiner has articulated persuasive reasoning
with a rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified
the high voltage gate driver circuit of AP A "to be transmitted as an output in
accordance with selection performed by a circuit in view of the teaching of
Yamazaki to simplify both circuit design and control thereof." Id. at 6.
Appellants present no persuasive evidence or explanation to rebut the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. See Reply Br. 10.
For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of AP A and Yamazaki teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 11, which Appellants argue is patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 12. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 8-10, 12-16, and 19, for which
Appellants advance no further arguments. Id.
5
Appeal2014-007872
Application 11/848,501
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6