10985289 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Schmitt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 10, 2012

10985289 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/985,289 11/10/2004 Jonathan Schmitt 04-0708/L13.12-0281 4782 7590 09/10/2012 LSI Logic Corporation Pete R. Scott 1621 Barber Lane, MS D-106 Milpitas, CA 95035 EXAMINER ALMO, KHAREEM E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2816 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/10/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JONATHAN SCHMITT and ROGER L. ROISEN ____________________ Appeal 2009-015398 Application 10/985,289 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015398 Application 10/985,289 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 18-20 and 23. Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-12 are allowable. Claims 21-22 are objected to for depending on rejected claims. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invented a delay locked loop fabricated on an integrated circuit. Specification 1:8-11. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 18, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 18. A delay locked loop comprising: [1] a phase detector having a reference input, a feedback input and a charge control output; [2] a charge pump coupled between the charge control output and a common node; [3] a loop filter coupled to the common node; [4] a first voltage-controlled delay line coupled between the reference input and the feedback input and having a first delay, which is controlled by a first set of current source transistors coupled to the common node; and [5] a second voltage-controlled delay line selectively coupled into and out of series with the first delay line, between the reference input and the feedback input, and having a second delay which is controlled by a second set of current source transistors coupled to the common node, wherein the second set 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 16, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 14, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 13, 2008), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Aug. 22, 2007). Appeal 2009-015398 Application 10/985,289 3 of current source transistors have smaller gate widths than the first set of current source transistors. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Hillis Li Lin Lin US 5,118,975 US 6,208,183 B1 US 6,407,601 B1 US 6,836,166 B2 Jun. 2, 1992 Mar. 27, 2001 Jun. 18, 2002 Dec. 28, 2004 Jan M. Rabaey, Digital Integrated Circuits: A Design Perspective, p. 135 (Prentice Hall Inc., 1996) (“Rabaey”). REJECTIONS Claims 18-20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Lin '166, and Lin '601. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Li, Lin ‘166 and Lin ‘601 turns on whether Lin ‘166 describes or suggests “wherein the second set of current source transistors have smaller gate widths than the first set of current source transistors,” as required by limitation [5] of claim 18. ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that the combination of Li, Lin ‘166 and Lin ‘601 fails to teach or suggest “wherein the second set of current source transistors have smaller gate widths than the first set of current source Appeal 2009-015398 Application 10/985,289 4 transistors,” as recited by limitation [5] of claim 18. App. Br. 9-11. Specifically, the Appellants contend that a fine delay does not inherently have a smaller transistor gate width than that of a coarse delay, as found by the Examiner. App. Br. 6-7 and Reply Br. 2-3. We agree with the Appellants. The Examiner finds that Li teaches all of claim 18 except for the second set of current source transistors having smaller gate widths than the first set of current source transistors. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner relies upon Lin ‘166 for describing this limitation. Ans. 5 (citing Lin ‘166, Fig. 2). In the cited portion, Lin ‘166 shows a fine delay line and a course delay line. Ans. 5. The Examiner takes Official Notice that “[i]t is well known in the art that a fine delay line is necessarily constructed to have a smaller width than a course delay line.” Final Rej. 6. That is, the Examiner asserts that a fine delay inherently has current source transistors with a smaller gate width than that of a coarse delay. Final. Rej. 5 and Ans. 8. However, we do not find any evidence in Lin ‘166 that a fine delay must have smaller transistor gate widths than that of the coarse delay. The Examiner has provided Rabaey to support the Examiner’s Official Notice that a fine delay has a smaller gate width, however, we find nothing in Rabaey to support this position. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18. Dependent claims 19-20 and 23 incorporate this same subject matter and therefore we do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the season reasons. Since this issue is dispositive as to the rejections against these claims, we need not reach the remaining arguments raised by the Appellants against these rejections. Appeal 2009-015398 Application 10/985,289 5 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Lin '166, and Lin '601. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 18-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Lin '166, and Lin '601 is not sustained. REVERSED msc