Ex Parte Schulze-Icking-Konert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

14098647 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/098,647 12/06/2013
34044 7590 03/29/2018
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Bosch)
100 EAST WISCONSIN A VENUE
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Georg Schulze-Icking-Konert
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.
022862-1979-USOO 3577
EXAMINER
0 TOOLE, COLLEEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
mkeipdocket@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORG SCHULZE-ICKING-KONERT and
MICHAEL FORSCHT
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
Technology Center 2800
Before GEORGE C. BEST, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 1-11, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 6, 2013
(hereinafter "Spec."); Final Office Action mailed November 12, 2015
(hereinafter "Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed April 11, 2016 (hereinafter
"Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed January 3, 2017 (hereinafter
"Ans."); and Reply Brief filed March 3, 2017 (hereinafter "Reply Brief').
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Robert Bosch GmbH, which is also identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
The Claimed Invention
Appellant's disclosure relates to a method for a control device
comprising a processing device, an I/O module, and a clock generator for
providing a system clock. Abstract; Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 8, Claims App'x) (key disputed
claim language italicized and bolded):
1. A method (200) for a control device (100)
comprising a processing device (110), an I/O module
(115) and a clock generator (105), wherein the processing
device (110) and the I/O module (115) are designed to
operate with a system clock of the clock generator ( 105),
said method comprising:
determining (215, 220) that capacity
utilization of the processing device (110) is exceeding a
predetermined threshold,
determining (230) that the I/O module (115)
is in a state in which a change in the system clock is
uncritical, and
when the 110 module (115) is in a state in
which a change in the system clock is uncritical,
changing (240) the system clock in order to match
per/ ormance capacity of the processing device (110) to
capacity utilization.
2
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
The Reference
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal: Branover et al., (US 2012/0054519 Al;
pub. Mar. 1, 2012) (hereinafter "Branover").
The Rejection
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: claims 1-
11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Branover. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant in light of this appeal record, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection principally for the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Appeal
Brief and Reply Brief, which we adopt as our own. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner determines that Branover discloses a method for a
control device satisfying all of the steps of claim 1 and thus, concludes that
the reference anticipates the claim. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2-3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because "Branover does not disclose changing a system clock when
an I/O module is in a state in which such a change is uncritical," as required
by the claim. Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's argument is persuasive because the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Branover discloses the
step of changing a system clock when the I/O module is in a state in which a
3
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
change in the system clock is uncritical, as required by claim 1. To serve as
an anticipatory reference, "the reference must disclose each and every
element of the claimed invention." In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
Branover discloses a method and apparatus for balancing performance
and power consumption in a processor based on application activity (e.g.,
processing workload) and that the processor is configured to operate at three
operating states: low, intermediate, and high. Branover i-fi-1 6, 20, 21.
Branover further discloses that the processor transitions to the high operating
state when activity exceeds a high threshold and transitions to the low
operating state when activity exceeds a low threshold, and that the operating
state of a processor corresponds to the frequency of a clock signal. Id. at
20-21. There is no disclosure or suggestion in Branover of changing a
system clock when the I/O module is in a state in which a change in the
system clock is uncritical.
None of the portions of Branover that the Examiner relies upon in the
rejection discloses or suggests this claim step. See Branover, i-fi-123-25, 97,
Figs. 1, 8. Moreover, as Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 5; Reply
Br. 4 ), in contrast to the Examiner's findings, Branover actually discloses
changing the operating state of the system when such a change would be
critical, i.e., changing to the "high operating" state when the application
activity level is high. Branover, Fig. 8 (step 720), i-fi-188-91. For example,
as shown in Figure 8 of Branover, the system switches to the high operating
state in step 720, then steps 725 and 730 loop until such time as activity
drops below the high level, and then in step 735, the system determines if it
should potentially switch to the low level. Indeed, none of steps depicted in
4
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
Figure 8 of Branover disclose or suggest changing a system clock when an
I/O module is in a state in which such change is uncritical.
The Examiner's comments at pages 2-3 of the Answer are not
persuasive because they are largely conclusory and not supported by
sufficient evidence in the record and do not meaningfully address
Appellant's principal argument that Branover does not disclose the
"changing a system clock when the I/O module is in a state in which a
change in the system clock is uncritical" step of claim 1. In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding "rejections ... cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements").
We do not find the Examiner's findings regarding paragraph 97 of
Branover (Ans. 3) sufficient to establish that the reference discloses
changing a system clock when the I/O module is in a state in which a change
in the system clock is uncritical and support the Examiner's rejection for the
reasons provided by Appellant at page 5 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3--4
of the Reply Brief. In particular, we concur with Appellant that the
"anomalous events" discussed in paragraph 97 of Branover do not appear to
have anything to do with determining a point when a change in a system
clock is uncritical or changing a system clock when an I/O module is in a
state in which such a change is uncritical, as required by the claim.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's determination that
Branover discloses a method satisfying all of the steps of claim 1 and
anticipates the claim.
Because claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and claims 10 and 11
include the step of changing a system clock when the I/O module is in a state
5
Appeal2017-006215
Application 14/098,647
in which a change is uncritical similar to claim 1, we also cannot sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Branover.
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6