Ex Parte Melanson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

13077421 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/077,421 03/31/2011
138325 7590 11/21/2018
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John L. Melanson
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.
2011P02882 US 5544
EXAMINER
AMRANY,ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
kim. larocca@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
Gigi.Miller© signify. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN L. MELANSON and ERIC J. KING
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 31, 2011
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated November 21, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed April 21, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's
Answer dated July 24, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
September 25, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to methods and
systems of multiple power sources for a switching power converter
controller. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix with emphasis to highlight key disputed limitations, is illustrative
of the claims on appeal.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first power supply having a first source follower transistor to
conduct a start-up current for a controller and supply an
operating voltage for the controller; and
a second power supply having a second source follower
transistor to conduct a steady-state operational current
for the controller and supply an operating voltage from a
supply node for the controller, wherein a source of the
first source follower transistor and a source of the second
source follower transistor are coupled to the supply node
and, during operation of the apparatus, when the source
of the second source follower transistor is biased with the
operating voltage at the supply node to cause the second
source follower transistor to tum ON, the second source
follower transistor changes the operating voltage and the
change in the operating voltage at the supply node causes
the first source follower transistor to automatically
tum OFF.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-38
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kasai et al. (US 6,912,140 B2,
issued June 28, 2005) ("Kasai") in view of de Sartre et al. (US 4,692,853,
issued September 8, 1987) ("de Sartre"). Ans. 2. The Examiner also
maintains the rejection of claims 4 and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
2
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
as unpatentable over Kasai in view of de Sartre and Ueta et al.
(US 5,581,453, issued December 3, 1996) ("Ueta"). Id.
We focus our discussion on claim 1, which includes the argued
limitations. See Appeal Br. 7-17.
The Examiner finds that Kasai discloses all the elements of claim 1 's
apparatus, but does not discloses a steady state current path (through diode
D 1) that includes a source follower transistor. Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Kasai,
5:23-8:7, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds, however, that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to modify Kasai's apparatus to replace
the diode (D 1) with a second follower transistor because "the two
components ( source follower, diode) are art recognized equivalents for their
ability to be switched off by controlling the output voltages (source voltage
for the source follower, cathode voltage for the diode)." Id. at 9. The
Examiner relies on de Sartre as support for this equivalency.
The Examiner finds that de Sartre discloses chopped power supply
circuit that includes a first power supply (14, 32, 30) having a first diode
(32) to conduct a start-up current for a controller (CII) and supply an
operating voltage (via 28) for the controller, and a second power supply
(ES3, 24, 26) having a second diode (24) to conduct a steady-state
operational current for the controller and supply an operating voltage from a
supply node (28) for the controller. Id. at 9-10 (citing de Sartre, 4:25-6:3,
Fig. 1 ). The Examiner further finds that the cathode of the first diode (32)
and a cathode of the second diode (24) are coupled to the supply node (28)
and, during operation, when the cathode of the second diode is biased with
the operating voltage at the supply node to cause the second diode to tum
ON, the second diode changes the operating voltage and the change in the
3
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
operating voltage at the supply node causes the first diode to automatically
tum OFF. Id. at 10 (citing de Sartre, 4:25---6:3, Fig. 1). According to the
Examiner, de Sartre uses two diodes to act as a diode OR'ing circuit. Id.
When de Sartre's tertiary winding produces a sufficiently high voltage, it
biases the first diode to tum off. Id. The Examiner finds that this is similar
to how Kasai functions; the tertiary winding voltage biases the source
follower to tum off. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that de Sartre establishes
the equivalent functionality of the two components in a switching power
supply; namely, using them in an OR'ing circuit so that the controller only
receives voltage from one source. Id.
Appellants argue that Kasai and de Sartre do not teach any
equivalency between a source follower and a diode in the steady-state
operating power supply. Appeal Br. 14.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains that a source follower transistor and start-up diode are
equivalent (A= B), and a start-up diode and steady state diode are
equivalent (B = C). Ans. 6. Then, relying on the Transitive Property of
Equality (if A= B, and B = C, then A= C), the Examiner concludes that the
source follower and steady state diode are equivalent as well. Id. The
Examiner's finding, however, is not supported by the teachings of Kasai or
de Sartre. That is, on the record before us the Examiner has not established
the purported equivalence of a source follower and a steady state current
path is recognized in the art. Final Act. 9. Indeed, as Appellants argue, both
Kasai and de Sartre use a diode (Kasai's diode DI, de Sartre's diode 24) to
establish the steady state operational voltage. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 4.
4
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
Additionally, the Examiner has not established the purported
equivalence of "the two halves of the OR'ing circuit" is recognized in the
art. Ans. 5. Rather, the Examiner concludes without sufficient evidentiary
support that, "[T]he equivalence between a first diode and a source follower
to achieve the first half of the OR'ing circuit has been demonstrated by the
prior art; therefore, that equivalency would apply to the second half of the
OR'ing circuit as well." Ans. 13. Thus, the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for modifying Kasai to include a source follower transistor in a
steady state current path based on the teachings of de Sartre does not have
adequate rational underpinnings. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007)) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness."). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kasai and
de Sartre.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 14 relies upon the same
reason without rational underpinnings discussed above. Thus, for the same
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kasai in view of de Sartre and Ueta.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-38 is reversed.
5
Appeal2018-000081
Application 13/077,421
REVERSED
6