11395004 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte Marando et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 23, 2013

11395004 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EILEEN M. MARANDO and ROBERT W. SCHOEPFLIN ____________________ Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3, 5-14, and 16-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 12, and 20-26 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. A system, comprising: a PWM generator configured to generate a PWM (Pulse Width Modulated) signal having a duty cycle dependent on a duty cycle value; and control logic coupled to the PWM generator and configured to generate the duty cycle value to have a piecewise linear relationship with respect to temperature, wherein the piecewise linear relationship is defined by a plurality of linear equations, wherein at least two of the plurality of linear equations defining the piecewise linear relationship have different slopes; wherein the control logic is further configured to vary the number of the linear equations comprised in the plurality of linear equations from a default number of linear equations, according to the value of a specific overall temperature range and a minimum temperature range per linear equation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Blake US 6,188,189 B1 Feb. 13, 2001 Henderson US 6,757,592 B1 Jun. 29, 2004 Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 3 REJECTION Appellants seek our review of the following rejection. I. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Blake and Henderson. ANALYSIS Blake discloses a system for controlling the speed of a cooling fan dependent on a sensed temperature. See, e.g., Blake, col. 2, l. 25-col. 3, l. 5. Specifically, Blake discloses a PWM (pulse width modulated) fan-speed control system “in which the PWM pulse width, and consequently the fan speed, varies linearly over a predefined temperature range Tmin to Tmax.” Blake, col. 2, ll. 46-49. Blake discloses that its system provides “options to set the temperature range (Tmax-Tmin) by specifying the number of degrees C corresponding to each increment in pulse width.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 50-53. Blake clarifies that “[b]y way of example, one can assume that fan speed is roughly linearly related to PWM duty cycle, and that the scheme provides for a linear increase in PWM duty cycle from Tmin to Tmax in a predetermined number of increments.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 54-57. Still more specifically, Blake discloses that the system “accommodates about 240 speed increments, with each increment corresponding to a fraction of a degree C.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 61-63. Blake discloses that the system may provide a finite number of available increment sizes, such as “1/16 of a degree C, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 degree.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 63-65. Thus, Blake’s system can achieve a desired temperature by selecting a predetermined speed increment that corresponds to a desired temperature based on a single linear relationship between these two factors. Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 4 The Examiner finds that each of Blake’s increments constitutes a linear equation, stating that “[w]hen Blake defines such a plurality of temperature increments (i.e. duty cycle step sizes), what is essentially produced is a plurality of linear line segments that are connected at their ends such that every segment has the same slope (since the overall relationship is linear).” Ans. 6, 7. Based on this and an assertion that Blake discloses varying the number of increments, the Examiner finds that Blake’s “control logic is further configured to vary the number of the linear equations comprised in the plurality of linear equations,” as required by claim 1. See Ans. 6-8. The Examiner then looks to Henderson as teaching that a plurality of different linear equations can be used to define a duty cycle and fan speed for a desired temperature. Ans. 10. Appellants argue that Blake’s increments are not separate linear equations, but merely define the size of steps that collectively conform to a single linear relationship. App. Br. 15. Because Blake’s increments do not constitute multiple linear equations, Appellants argue, Blake does not disclose varying a number of linear equations, as the Examiner contends, or provide a basis to modify Blake’s single linear relationship and use multiple linear equations, as taught by Henderson. See id. The Examiner responds that “[i]t is important to understand that in the rejection above, the Examiner is equating the term ‘increment’ as used in Blake with the term ‘line segment’ as used in Henderson.” Ans. 19. In response, Appellants reiterate that Blake’s increments do not constitute linear equations. Reply Br. 5. At the core of this dispute, we must consider whether Blake’s increments constitute 1) “a plurality of linear line segments that are connected at their ends such that every segment has the same slope,” as the Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 5 Examiner suggests, or 2) discrete step increases in fan speed, as Appellants’ arguments suggest. While the Examiner repeatedly alleges that the increments constitute linear equations or line segments connected end-to- end, the Examiner does not identify any specific disclosure of Blake or other evidence that clearly supports this position. Indeed, Blake’s disclosure that its “scheme provides for a linear increase in PWM duty cycle from Tmin to Tmax in a predetermined number of increments” (Blake, col. 2, ll. 56-57 (emphasis added)) suggests that the increments constitute discrete values, not linear equations or line segments.1 Accordingly, we are not convinced that the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blake discloses a plurality of linear equations. Consequently, we are not convinced that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Blake discloses its “control logic is further configured to vary the number of the linear equations comprised in the plurality of linear equations,” as required by claim 1. See Ans. 6-8. Therefore, the Examiner’s reason for combining Henderson’s different linear equations with Blake to provide a plurality of linear equations with different slopes lacks a rational underpinning. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2, 3, and 5-11 depending therefrom. Each of independent claims 12 and 20-26 includes limitations similar to those of claim 1 related to providing a plurality of linear equations with 1 In this regard, Blake discloses that the step of determining a temperature increment value may comprise “reading the temperature increment value from a predetermined one of the storage registers, or reading an output voltage from an external voltage divider network.” Col. 5, ll. 47-50. Appeal 2011-006588 Application 11/395,004 6 different slopes.2 Regarding independent claims 22 and 26, the Examiner states that “the varying of the number of equations based on the temperature range is disclosed by the Blake-Henderson combination (See analysis for Claim 1 above).” Ans. 15. Regarding independent claims 12, 20, 21, and 23-25, the Examiner simply refers (directly or indirectly) to the analysis for claim 1. Id. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra for claim 1, the Examiner has not established that Blake discloses a plurality of linear equations or that it would have been obvious to modify Blake’s single linear equation to provide a plurality of linear equations with different slopes, as recited in claims 12 and 20-26. We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12 and 20-26, or of claims 13, 14, and 16-19, which depend from claim 12. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-26. REVERSED hh 2 Claims 12 and 20 recite “wherein at least two of the respective linear equations have different slopes.” Claims 21, 23, and 25 recite “a plurality of linear equations that together approximate a curve.” Claims 22, 24, and 26 recite that the slopes of the linear equations are different (higher or lower).