Ex Parte Lohmueller et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2009

10329118 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HORST LOHMUELLER and THOMAS MAGER
____________________

Appeal 2009-001570
Application 10/329,1181
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided:2 July 1, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention concerns a device for triggering an electric
power component wherein the electromagnetic compatibility is enhanced
through the use of two power sources which are controlled by a U/I
converter. The U/I converter includes a timing unit having performance
characteristics determined by either an internal timer or by a feed-back path
of the switching output (Spec. 1). The two controllable power sources
control the control input of the power component, wherein the current
generated by one power source is less than the other (Spec. 4).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A device for triggering an electric power component, the power
component including a switching output for connecting a load, the device
comprising:
an arrangement for providing, for a switching operation at the power
component, both (a) at least one of an open-loop voltage control and a
closed-loop voltage control of the switching output, and (b) a simultaneously
adjustable at least one of an open- loop current control and a closed-loop
current control of the switching output, independently of the load to be
switched; and
two controllable power sources for controlling a control input of the
power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first one of the two
controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a current of a second
one of the two controllable power sources.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

3 Claim 3 has been canceled.
2
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

Mitsuda US 6,222,403 B1 Apr. 24, 2001
Calafut US 6,396,102 B1 May 28, 2002
Milazzo US 6,407,594 B1 Jun. 18, 2002

Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mitsuda.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Milazzo.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mitsuda in view of Calafut.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed November 8, 2007), the Reply
Brief (filed April 11, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed February 6,
2008) for their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Mitsuda reference does not identically
describe the feature of two controllable power sources for controlling the
control input of the power component with the first power source delivering
a current having a magnitude that is less than the current from the second
power source (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Mitsuda teaches two controllable power
sources (CS10, CS11, and Q11) and (CS20, CS21, and Q21), wherein
transistors Q11 and Q21 are complementary in operation. The Examiner
concludes that the currents generated by these two power sources are
different and, hence, one current is less than the other (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following two issues:
3
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

1. Did Appellants show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Mitsuda teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control
input of the power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first
one of the two controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a
current of a second one of the two controllable power sources?
2. Did Appellants show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Milazzo teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control
input of the power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first
one of the two controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a
current of a second one of the two controllable power sources?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, the invention concerns a device for
triggering a power component which includes a first circuit block 20 and a
second circuit block 30 (Spec. 2: 6-8).
2. The first circuit block 20 includes a voltage/current converter
22 connected to receive an input pulsed voltage level UE. The first circuit
block 20 includes an amplifier 24 connected to the output of U/I converter
22. A timing unit 26 connects to the input 12 and has one or more outputs
that control the U/I converter 22 (Spec. 2: 12-8).
3. The second circuit block 30 includes a first controllable power
source 32 and a second controllable power source 34 connected in series
between a voltage source and ground potential. A controllable switch S1
4
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

connects to control both controllable power sources 32 and 34 (Spec. 2: 24-
31).
4. The gate of a power component 48 is connected between the
first power source 32 and switch S1. The drain of power component 48
supplies a switching output 46 which connects to a load 44 (Spec. 3: 5-16).
5. To provide closed-loop voltage control, a feed-back path from
switching output 46 to timing unit 26 is established (Spec. 3: 18-19; 4: 17-
22).

Mitsuda
6. Mitsuda teaches an open-drain type slew rate output circuit
having a first driver circuit (CS10, Q10, Q20, CS20) performing a first
driving capability and a second driver circuit (CS11, Q11, Q21, CS21)
performing a second driving capability, as well as a first control circuit (I1,
I2) connected to the first driver circuit for controlling the first driver circuit
and a second control circuit (CS3, I3, Q3, CS4, Q4, I4) connected to the
second driver circuit for controlling the second driver circuit so that in a
predetermined time period, both the first and second driver circuits are
operated and in the remaining time period, only the first driver circuit is
operated (Fig. 10, col. 20, l. 32-col. 21, l. 27).
7. Mitsuda teaches that current sources CS3 and CS4 that generate
respective currents I1 and I2 which supply transistors, Q3 and Q4, wherein
that gates of transistors, Q3 and Q4, are connected to the control input of the
power component Q0. Currents, I1 and I2, are set such that I1 is less than
I2, wherein I1=ImX/A, I2=ImY/A, and variable X is less than Y. The
currents, I1 and I2, indirectly control the current supplied to the gates of
5
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

transistors Q11 and Q21, since current sources, CS3 and CS4, couple to
inverters, I3 and I4, respectively (Fig. 10; col. 22, ll. 7-43).
8. Mitsuda teaches that transistors Q11 and Q21 operate
complementarily, wherein transistor Q11 turns off at a point, such that
power component Q0 is driven by only the first constant current from
current source CS10 when power source, CS10, CS11 and Q11,(Fig. 10; col.
23, ll. 1-33).
Milazzo
9. Milazzo teaches a zero bias current driver control circuit having
current I1 and I2 that are mismatched (Figs. 8 and 9, col. 4, ll. 5-10).
10. Milazzo teaches a zero bias current driver control circuit having
current ID1 and ID4 that are different (Fig. 9, col. 2, ll. 52-58).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
6
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, Appellants must explain
which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's
anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with
specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory
explanations for such findings.")(emphasis added). See also In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant
can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.’

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)
7
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” id. at 415, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of
Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at
12), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. The Court
explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

Id. at 417. The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 4, and 5 over Mitsuda
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
8
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Mitsuda
teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control input of the
power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first one of the two
controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a current of a second
one of the two controllable power sources (App. Br. 8).
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Mitsuda reference does not
identically describe the feature of two current sources which are different in
quantitative terms, wherein the current sources deliver currents of different
magnitude (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that the Examiner stated in his
rejection that the magnitude of the voltage level present at the two current
sources is different, as opposed to the current sources generating different
current (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Appellants have mistakenly argued that the
Examiner stated in his rejection that the magnitude of the voltage level
present at the two current sources is different as opposed to the current
sources generating different current (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner finds further
that Mitsuda teaches that the transistors, Q11 and Q21, operate
complementarily and, thus, generate different currents (Ans. 6, FF 9).
Appellants refer to a requirement that “different current sources in
quantitative terms” be a requirement of claim 1 when it is not a specific
recitation of the claim language (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mitsuda
teaches “two controllable power sources for controlling a control input of the
power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first one of the two
controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a current of a second
one of the two controllable power sources,” as required by claim 1 (Ans. 6).
9
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

Specifically, there is a point in time when transistor Q11 turns OFF
wherein the power component Q0 is driven by only one first constant current
source CS10 (FF 8). Thus, a different current will be generated by power
source, CS10, CS11, and Q11, for controlling the control input of the power
component Q0, that is less than the current generated by power source,
CS20, CS21, and Q21 (FF 8). Moreover, Mitsuda teaches that current
sources I1 and I2 are set such that I1 is less than I2 (FF 7). These currents,
I1 and I2, indirectly control the current supplied to the gates of transistors,
Q11 and Q21, since current sources, CS3 and CS4, couple to inverters, I3
and I4, respectively (FF 7).
Because Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1,
4, and 5.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 over Milazzo
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in finding that Milazzo
teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control input of the
power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first one of the two
controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a current of a second
one of the two controllable power sources (App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 4-5).
Specifically, Appellants contend that even though current Is is smaller than
current Ic, these currents are not the same as the currents generated by
current sources I1and I2 which must differ as required by claim 1 (App. Br.
10, Reply Br. 4-5).
10
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

The Examiner finds that Milazzo teaches that currents I1 and I2 are
“mismatched” (Ans. 6, FF 9). The Examiner finds further that Milazzo
teaches that currents ID1 and ID4 differ, whereby one is less than the other
(Ans. 6, FF 10)
We agree with the Examiner’s position that Milazzo teaches two
controllable power sources for controlling a control input of the power
component Pw, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first one of the two
controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a current of a second
one of the two controllable power sources (Ans. 6, FF 9 and 10).
Because Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, and 5.
Rejection of Claim 2 over Mitsuda
We affirm supra the rejection of parent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Mitsuda. Appellants present no separate argument for the
patentability of dependent claim 2. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect
to parent claim 1, supra.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Mitsuda teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control
input of the power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first
one of the two controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a
current of a second one of the two controllable power sources.
11
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Milazzo teaches two controllable power sources for controlling a control
input of the power component, wherein a magnitude of a current of a first
one of the two controllable power sources is less than a magnitude of a
current of a second one of the two controllable power sources.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 is affirmed.
12
Appeal 2009-1570
Application 10/329,118

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

ELD

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1004

13