Ex Parte Meier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2010

10964111 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BERND MEIER and PETER VOLKL
____________

Appeal 2009-007454
Application 10/964,111
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007454
Application 10/964,111
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12. Appeal Brief. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed a power supply circuit for a
microcontroller of a transmission control having a first output providing a
first output voltage, a second output providing a second output voltage
wherein the first and second output voltages are different. See Appeal Brief
3.
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A power supply circuit, especially for a microcontroller of a transmission
control, comprising:
- a first output to provide a first output voltage,
- a second output to provide a second output voltage, wherein the first output
voltage and the second output voltage being different,
- an adjusting unit for setting the first output voltage and the second output
voltage, and
- a first regulator for limiting the voltage difference between the first output
voltage and the second output voltage by regulating the voltage difference
between the first and second output voltages.

The Rejection
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Otake (US 5,995,390; Nov. 30, 1999). Answer 3.

Appeal 2009-007454
Application 10/964,111
3
ISSUE
Does Otake disclose a first output voltage that is different from the
second output voltage?

PRINCIPLE OF LAWS
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner indicates that Otake discloses a power supply circuit in
Figures 1-8. See Answer 3. It should be noted that Figures 1 and 2 of Otake
are labeled “prior art.” The Examiner states that Otake discloses a power
supply circuit wherein the first output voltage (PS1) is different from the
second output voltage (PS2). Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner
changed his reliance upon Otake’s Figure 1 and now relies upon Otake’s
Figure 2. See Appeal Brief 6. Appellants contend that the embodiment in
Otake’s Figure 2 discloses two separate reference voltage generators 11 and
21 associated with the master and slave units. Id. Appellants conclude that
Otake’s Specification is silent in reference to whether the reference voltage
generators produce the same reference voltage values. Id. We find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
The Examiner states that Otake discloses two power supplies that
have different loads and properties and therefore they have different output
voltages. See Answer 4. However, Otake does not disclose that the two
power supplies have different output voltages. See Otake column 1, lines
Appeal 2009-007454
Application 10/964,111
4
10-15, 20-40 and col. 4, lines 36-44. Further, we agree with Appellants that
Otake’s reference voltage generators are two separate devices that are not
used in the same power supply circuit as required in claim 1. This is
especially evident from Otake’s Figure 2 which the Examiner relies upon for
his rejection of the claims because Otake’s Figure 2 shows two distinct
voltage generators.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3,
6-8, 11 and 12 over Otake.

ORDER
REVERSED

KIS

King & Spalding LLP
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 3200
Austin TX 78701