Ex Parte Perreault et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

14035445 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/035,445 09/24/2013
22494 7590 07/24/2018
DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
SUITE 201B
ONE UNIVERSITY A VENUE
WESTWOOD, MA 02090
David J. Perreault
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.
ETA-006PUS 2239
EXAMINER
RIVERA-PEREZ, CARLOS 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2838
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J. PERREAULT,
WEI LI, and
YEVGENIY A. TKACHENKO
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/03 5 ,445 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Eta Devices, Inc., which, according to the
Brief, is the real party in interest (Br. 3).
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
Independent claim 1 below is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal ( emphases added):
1. An integrated power supply and modulator system
compnses:
a magnetic regulation stage having an input adapted to
receive an input signal and a plurality of outputs;
a switched-capacitor voltage balancer stage having a
plurality of inputs and a plurality of outputs with each input of
said switched-capacitor voltage balancer coupled to a
corresponding one of the plurality of outputs of said magnetic
regulation stage; and
at least one output switching stage having a plurality of
inputs and at least one output with each input of said output
switching stage simultaneously coupled to a corresponding one
of the plurality of outputs of said switched-capacitor voltage
balancer stage,
wherein said magnetic regulation stage comprises an
inductor and a set of switches, wherein magnetic regulation
stage provides charge transfer from the input of the magnetic
regulation stage through the inductor to at least one input of
the switched-capacitor voltage balancer stage.
The Examiner maintains the following rejections2 :
(a) claims 1, 2, 5-17, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dawson et al. (US 2010/0117727 Al, published May 13,
2010) ("Dawson") in view of Sanders et al. (WO 2013/086445 Al,
published June 13, 2013) ("Sanders");
2 We refer to the Specification, filed Sept. 24, 2013 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action, notice emailed Aug. 26, 2016 (Final Act.), Appeal Brief, filed Jan.
23, 2017 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, notice emailed May 4, 2017
("Ans.").
2
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
(b) claims 3, 4, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dawson and Sanders and further in view of Szczeszyncski
et al. (US 8,503,203 Bl, issued Aug. 6, 2013) ("Szczeszyncski"); and
(c) claims 18, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dawson and Sanders and further in view of Szczeszyncski
and Mehas et al. (US 2005/0194951 Al, published Sept. 8, 2005)
("Mehas").
ANALYSIS
Rejection over Dawson and Sanders
Claims 1, 2, 5-17, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Sanders. Appellant sets forth
separate arguments for claims 1, 13, 21, and 24, claim 11, and claim 12 (Br.
10-12). Appellant does not argue claims 2, 5-10, and 14--17 separately
from claims 1, 13, 21 and 24. Therefore, we address claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-
1 7, 21, and 24 as a first group, claim 11 as a second group, and claim 12 as a
third group.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-17, 21, and 24
Appellant's principal argument on appeal is that Dawson and Sanders
do not disclose or suggest an integrated power supply and modulator system
including the switched-capacitor stage3 recited in independent claims 1, 13,
21, and 24 (Br. 10-11). Specifically, Appellant contends the system of
Dawson ties voltages to values related to an input voltage of a converter and
3 We use the phrase "switched-capacitor stage" to refer to the switched-
capacitor voltage balancer stage of claims 1 and 24 as well as the multi-
output switched-capacitor stage of claims 13 and 21.
3
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
thus its voltages are not independently controlled so charge is redistributed
among levels so voltages are ratiometrically balanced (id. at 10). Appellant
asserts the Examiner's finding that Sanders discloses a switched-capacitor
stage, as recited in the claims, relies upon a subset of components from a
multilevel boost power factor correction rectifier that operates to draw
energy at a high power factor from an AC input while imposing specific
voltages at the right-hand side of Sander's inductor but does not balance
voltages or distribute charge (id. at 10-11 ).
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner finds Dawson
discloses an integrated power supply and modulator system including a
switched-capacitor stage and at least one output switching stage (Final Act.
2). The Examiner finds Dawson does not disclose a magnetic regulation
stage, as recited in the claims, or that its switched-capacitor stage has a
plurality of inputs and a plurality of outputs, with each input coupled to an
output of the magnetic regulation stage (id. at 2-3).
The Examiner finds Sanders discloses a magnetic regulation stage
including an inductor and a set of switches, citing the embodiment shown in
Figure 14, and that the magnetic regulation stage provides charge transfer
from the input of the magnetic regulation stage through the inductor to
inputs of Sanders' s switched-capacitor stage, which has a plurality of inputs
and outputs (id. at 3). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to modify the device of Dawson in view of Sanders to reduce switching
losses (id.).
The Examiner further explains that the magnetic regulation stage
depicted in Dawson's Figure 14 includes the structure recited in the claims
(i.e., an inductor Lac and a set of switches SA1, SA2) connected to a switched-
4
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
capacitor stage (i.e., the components between C and CDc) and this structure
is similar to that depicted in Figures 8 and 9 of Appellant's disclosure (Ans.
4). The Examiner also correctly finds that paragraphs 74 and 75 of Sanders
discloses ratiometric voltage distribution (id.). In view of this, the Examiner
finds the system of Dawson, as modified in view of Sanders, would function
as recited in the claims (id.).
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner's explanation. Nor do the
arguments raised by Appellant identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 21, and 24. Specifically, Appellant's
argument that Dawson's voltages are not redistributed among levels so they
are ratiometrically balanced does not address what the combination of
Dawson's and Sanders's disclosures would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Nor does Appellant's argument that the Examiner selects a subset of
components from Sanders' s device explain why it would not have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dawson's
device in view of Sanders' s disclosure. Appellant argues the systems of
Dawson and Sanders "have quite disparate function and operation, and could
not be combined to operate in the ways that the Examiner asserts," "a skilled
artisan would have no motivation to combine the cited references," and,
even if Dawson and Sanders could have been combined, the combination of
Dawson's power amplifier modulator and Sander's isolated PFC rectifier
"would not operate in a similar manner as Applicant's claimed system" (Br.
11 ). Such general arguments, however, do not set forth with sufficient
particularity why the Examiner reversibly erred, especially in view of the
Examiner's findings and explanation, which set forth a prima facie case of
5
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
obviousness. As a result, a preponderance of the evidence in the record
supports the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 13, 21, and 24. Appellant
does not argue claims 2, 5-10, 13-17, 21 and 24 separately from claims 1,
13, 21, and 24 (Br. 10-11).
Claims 11 and 12
Although claims 11 and 12 are argued separately, we address them
together for purposes of efficiency.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that semiconductor
elements of the magnetic regulation stage, switched-capacitor voltage
balancer stage, and the at least one output switching stage are implemented
using a semiconductor process on a single die.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites that the semiconductor
elements of the magnetic regulation stage, switched-capacitor voltage
balancer stage, and the at least one output switching stage are provided from
a low-voltage CMOS semiconductor process on a single die.
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 11 and 12 by contending
Sanders does not disclose implementing its circuit as a semiconductor on a
single die (Br. 11-12). Appellant's arguments, however, do not address the
Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 12. The Examiner rejects claims 11
and 12 by concluding it would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to implement the circuit elements of Dawson, as modified by Sanders, on a
single die, as recited in claims 11 and 12, to improve its fabrication process
(Final Act. 7-8). The Examiner further finds that such single die fabrication
processes are well known in the art for improving fabrication and would
efficiently reduce the size of a circuit, reduce cost, permit low power
consumption, allow high switching speed, and reduce the number of pins in
6
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
a circuit (Ans. 6-7). Appellant's arguments do not address these findings or
conclusions and thus do not identify a reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11 and 12.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-17, 21,
and 24 over Dawson and Sanders.
Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 18-20, 22, and 23
Claims 3, 4, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dawson and Sanders and further in view of
Szczeszyncski.
Claims 18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dawson and Sanders and further in view of Szczeszyncski
and Mehas.
Appellant contends Szczeszyncski and Mehas each fail to remedy the
deficiencies of Dawson and Suzuki discussed above with regard to the § 103
rejection of claims 13 and 21 (Br. 12-13). For the reasons set forth above,
there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claims 13 and 21 that require
curing by Szczeszyncski or Mehas. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections of claims 3, 4, 18-20, 22, and 23.
7
Appeal2017-009784
Application 14/035,445
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8