13609536 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

Ex Parte Muggler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 11, 2016

13609536 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/609,536 99900 7590 Advent/Maxim The Advent Building 17838 Burke Street Suite 200 Omaha, NE 68118 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 09/11/2012 Patrick Muggier 10/13/2016 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. 16483.1168US01/MAXM-1168 8231 EXAMINER ROSENAU, DEREK JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2837 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/13/2016 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): uspto@adventip.com sloma@adventip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PATRICK MUGGLER and ANTHONY S. DOY1 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 Technology Center 2800 Before GEORGE C. BEST, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision2 rejecting claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14--20 in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. Appeal Brief 3, Sept. 22, 2014 [hereinafter Br.]. 2 Office Action, Apr. 22, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action]. Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 BACKGROUND Appellants' invention relates to a piezo driver "configured to furnish electric charge to a piezo component during a first operational state," and "to transfer electric charge from the piezo component to a passive energy storage component during a second operational state," in a way such that "the piezo driver conserves some of the electric charge within the driver and leads to a more efficient piezo driver as compared to piezo drivers that transfer the charge to ground." Spec. i-f 10. Claim 1 is representative: 1. A piezo driver comprising: a passive energy storage component configured to store electric charge; a voltage converter configured to electrically connect between a piezo component and the passive energy storage component, the voltage converter configured to furnish electric charge from the passive energy storage component to the piezo component during a first state of operation and to furnish electric charge from the piezo component to the passive energy storage component during a second state of operation, the first state of operation different from the second state of operation; a first switch, a second switch, a third switch, and a fourth switch, the first switch, the second switch, the third switch, and the fourth switch having an open configuration and a closed configuration, the first switch configured to electrically connect between the voltage converter and a first terminal of the piezo component, the second switch configured to electrically connect between a second terminal of the piezo component and ground potential, the third switch configured to electrically connect between ground potential and the first terminal of the piezo component, and the fourth switch configured to electrically connect between the voltage converter and the second terminal of the piezo component; a control module electrically connected to the first switch, the second switch, the third switch, and the fourth switch, the control module configured to cause the first switch, the second switch, the third switch, and the fourth switch to 2 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 transition between the open configuration and the closed configuration, the control module configured to receive an input signal; and a feedback component configured to electrically connect in parallel with the piezo component and configured to electrically connect to the control module, the feedback component configured to measure a voltage value across the piezo component and furnish a signal representing the voltage value to the control module, wherein the control module is configured to transition the first switch and the second switch to the closed configuration and the third switch and the fourth switch to the open configuration during the first state of operation, the control module configured to transition the third switch and the fourth switch to the closed configuration and the first switch and the second switch to the open configuration during the second state of operation, wherein the control module determines between the first state of operation and the second state of operation based upon a comparison of the signal representing the voltage value to the input signal. Br. 28-29. Claims 9 and 16 are also independent. See id. at 29-32. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: I. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rueger3 in view of Pompei.4 Final Action 2-11. II. Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rueger in view of Pompei and Hagood. 5 Final Action 11- 12. 3 Johannes-Jorg Rueger et al., U.S. Patent No. US 7,019,436 B2 (issued Mar. 28, 2006) [hereinafter Rueger]. 4 E. Joseph Pompei et al., U.S. Patent No. US 6,661,285 Bl (issued Dec. 9, 2003) [hereinafter Pompei]. 5 Nesbitt W. Hagood, IV et al., U.S. Patent No. US 6,995,496 Bl (issued Feb. 7, 2006). 3 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 III. Claims 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rueger in view of Pompei and Hoffman. 6 Final Action 12-13. Appellants separately argue independent claims 1, 9, and 16, see Br. 13-25, and argue that dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17-20 are patentable for the same reasons as the corresponding base claims, see id. at 17-18, 22, 25-26. Appellants' arguments for claims 9 and 16 are substantially identical to the argument presented for claim 1. Compare id. at 13-17 (claim 1), with id. at 18-21 (claim 9), and id. at 22-25 (claim 16); see also Answer 4--5 (noting that the arguments for claims 9 and 16 are repetitions of the arguments made for claim 1 ). Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims stand or fall together with claim 1. DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that all of the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combination of Rueger and Pompei. See Final Action 2-5. Figure 1 of Rueger is reproduced on the following page: 6 Christian Hoffmann et al., U.S. Patent No. 6, 133,714 (issued Oct. 17, 2000). 4 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 r l!l: I FIG.1 I T "" t ~ 4 2 1 Figure 1 is a circuit diagram showing a circuit "for charging and discharging a piezoelectric element." Rueger 5:38. According to the Examiner, Rueger teaches a piezo driver comprising a piezo component 1, an energy storage component 9, a voltage converter 2, and switches 3 and 5 for operating the driver in first and second states of operation according to claim 1. See Final Action 2 (citing Rueger 6:54--8:3, Figs. 1-5). Figure 1 of Pompei is reproduced belo\x1: Fig, 1 5 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 According to Pompei, Figure 1 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a capacitive load driving device 100, in accordance with the present invention. In the il- lustrated embodiment, the capacitive load driving device 100 in- cludes a current source 101 that can be coupled to a capacitive load 122 via a plurality of interconnected switches 110, 112, 114, and 116. The device 100 further includes a controller 102 con- figured to control the operation of the current source 101 and the plurality of interconnected switches 110, 112, 114, and 116 to provide at least one controlled switched drive signal to the ca- pacitive load 122. Pompei 4:26-36; see also Final Action 4--5 (citing Pompei 4:64--5:49, Fig. 1) (relating the features of Pompei to the limitations of claim 1 ). The Examiner determines that "[a]t the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the switching and control arrangement of Pompei et al. with the piezo driver device of Rueger et al. for the benefit of providing increased control of the piezo device." Final Action 5. Appellants argue that the controller of Pompei is directed to controlling operation of a DC current source and the interconnected switches to generate an output voltage waveform across the capacitive load corre- sponding to the predetermined input voltage waveform. In con- trast, the controller recited in claim 1 is directed to controlling switch configurations to allow for the transfer of electric charge to a piezo component during a first operational state and to allow the transfer electric charge from the piezo component to a passive energy storage component during a second operational state. Br. 17 (citing Pompei 5: 14--29); see also id. at 21, 25 (making the same argument regarding claims 9 and 16). Having carefully considered Appellants' argument and the appeal record as a whole, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1. The Examiner finds that "the generation of the voltage waveform in Pompei is 6 Appeal2015-003434 Application 13/609,536 provided by charging and discharging of the capacitive load, with this charging and discharging corresponding to the first and second operational states," Answer 4, and Appellants' arguments do not give us any persuasive reason to question this finding. 7 Furthermore, Pompei explicitly teaches that the capacitive load 122 may be a piezoelectric transducer. See Pompei 5:54- 59. Thus, the teachings of Pompei are directly applicable to a piezo driver as disclosed by Rueger that transfers electric charge to a piezo component during a first operational state and from the piezo component to a passive energy storage component during a second operational state. See In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that art is analogous if it is either (1) "from the same field of endeavor," or (2) "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved"). For the above reasons, and by a preponderance of the evidence on this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's decision to reject claim 1. For the same reasons, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, 7-10, and 14--20. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Appellants do not submit a Reply Brief addressing the findings and conclusions set forth in the Examiner's Answer. 7