Ex Parte Scoville

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2009

11275835 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER W. SCOVILLE
_____________

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
Technology Center 2800
______________

Decided:1 June 17, 2009
_______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT
E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through 29.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a circuit that aligns an edge of a first
signal with an edge of a second signal where the second signal has a 50%
duty cycle and is a divided ratio of the first signal. See page 2 of
Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An integrated circuit capable of aligning a first signal with a
second signal that is a divide ratio of the first signal, the integrated
circuit comprising:
a single latch;
a switch control circuit coupled to an input of the single latch to
align an edge of the first signal with an edge of the second signal and
to produce, for both an odd and an even divide ratio, a 50% duty cycle
output.

REFERENCES
Motley US 5,467,038 Nov. 14, 1995
Denham US 5,557,225 Sep. 17, 1996
Dellow US 6,696,870 B2 Feb. 24 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Dellow. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 4 of the
Answer.2

2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed June 12, 2008.
2

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835

The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 6 through 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dellow, Motley, and Denham. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer.

ISSUES
Anticipation rejection based upon Dellow.
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 14 of the Brief3 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error.
Appellant argues that Dellow does not teach a switch control circuit coupled
to the input of the latch as recited in claim 1. Brief 11 and 12. Appellant
asserts that the flip-flop item 34, the AND gates items 28 and 30, and the OR
gate item 32, which the Examiner equates to the claimed control circuit do
not align “an edge of a first signal with an edge of a second signal to
produce, for both odd and even divide ratio, a 50% duty cycle” as recited in
claim 1. Brief 13.
Thus, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 34 we are presented
with the issue: has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dellow teaches the switch control circuit as recited in claim 1?

Obviousness rejection based upon Dellow, Motley, and Denham.
Appellant argues on pages 14 through 23 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4 and 6 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

3 Throughout the opinion we refer to the corrected Brief dated April 18,
2008.
4 Appellant also presents arguments directed to claim 3. However as this
issue is dispositive of independent claim 1, the issue is also dispositive of
claim 3 which depends upon claim 1.
3

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
as being unpatentable over Dellow, Motley, and Denham is in error.
Appellant asserts that Dellow at best teaches that the output of the
multiplexer item 6 has edges aligned and a divide ratio, but does teach that
toggle circuit, item 26 (which includes flip-flop item 34), aligns a second
signal which is a divide ratio of a first signal as recited in claim 4. Brief 15.
Further, Appellant argues that Motley and Denham do not provide a
disclosure which teaches modifying Dellow to include such a feature. Id.
Appellant presents similar arguments directed to independent claim 7 on
pages 16 through 18 of the Brief and directed to independent claim 21 on
pages 18 through 20 of the Brief.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions directed to the rejection of independent
claims 4, 7, and 21 present us with the issue: has Appellant shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dellow, Motley, and
Denham teach that the output of toggle circuit, item 26 (which includes flip-
flop item 34), aligns a second signal which is a divide ratio of a first signal.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Appl.
Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore &
Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Dellow teaches a digital frequency divider which includes phase
control of the output signal in whole or half cycles. Abstract.
4

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
2. One embodiment of Dellow’s frequency divider is shown in Figure 6.
In this embodiment two input signals are input to an edge detector
(AND gate, item 14). The output of the edge detector is provided to a
latch circuit (or toggle circuit) item 26. Col. 4, ll. 16-23.
3. The latch circuit includes: two AND gates, items 28, 30, and an OR
gate, item 32, which are connected to the input of a D type flip-flop,
item 34. The flip-flop provides the output of the latch circuit. Col. 5,
ll. 51-55.
4. The output of the flip flop is provided to a program logic circuit, item
40 (consisting of gates items 22 and 24) which has other inputs that
allow the remainder of the gates to be configured so as to allow odd,
even of half division to be performed. Col. 4, ll. 23-26, and Fig. 6.
5. Figures 8(a) and 8(b) depict traces showing the inputs to the
frequency divider, the clock signal and the output of the frequency
divider. Note, the output is provided by multiplexer, item 6. Col. 4,
ll. 62-67 and col. 5, ll. 30-32.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation rejection based upon Dellow.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Dellow teaches the switch control circuit as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a circuit with a latch and a switch control circuit coupled to
the input of the latch. Claim 1 further recites that the control circuit aligns
an edge of the first signal with an edge of the second signal and produces,
for both odd and even divide ratio, a 50% duty cycle.
The Examiner has found that the circuit depicted in Figure 6 of
Dellow anticipates the claimed circuit. The Examiner has equated d-type
5

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
flip flop (item 34 in Figure 6) with the claimed latch and the gates (items 28,
30, and 32) with the claimed control circuit. Answer 4 and 6. Further, the
Examiner has found that the timing sequences in Figures 8(a) and 8(b)
depict that the output has a 50% duty cycle and has its edges aligned with
edges of the first signal. Answer 6. We disagree with the Examiner’s
findings. Initially, we note that the claim requires the control circuit, which
produces both the edge alignment and the 50% duty cycle, to be coupled to
the input of the latch. While we concur with the Examiner’s finding that the
gates, items 28, 30, and 32 are coupled to the input of the flip-flop (item 34,
which the Examiner equates to the claimed latch), we do not find that these
gates create the 50% duty cycle as claimed. Facts 3 and 4. The Examiner
refers to the trace of the signals “OUTPUT” and “CLOCK” in Figures 8(a)
and 8(b) as showing the 50% duty cycle and aligned edges. Answer 4.
While it appears that that there is an alignment of these signals in the figures,
the signal “OUTPUT” is not disclosed as being the output of the flip-flop
(item 34, which the Examiner equates to the claimed latch) but rather the
output of the multiplexer item 6. Fact 5. Further, the circuit which produces
the odd or even divide ratio in Dellow consists of items 22 and 24 working
in conjunction with items 18 and 20. Fact 4. None of these items are
connected to the input of the latch as claimed. Accordingly, we find that the
Examiner erred in finding that Dellow discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 or dependent claim 3.

Obviousness rejection based upon Dellow, Motley, and Denham.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Dellow, Motley, and Denham teaches that
6

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
the output of toggle circuit, item 26 (which includes flip-flop item 34),
aligns a second signal which is a divide ratio of a first signal as recited in
independent claims 4, 7, and 21.
Independent claim 4, recites a step of aligning the edge of the first and
second signal and “wherein, for both an odd and even divide ratio, an output
of the single switch shaping latch has a 50% duty cycle output.”
Independent claim 21 recites similar limitations. Claim 7 recites that the
output of the shaping latch aligns a divided clock signal, with a 50% duty
cycle, and a clock signal. Thus, the scope of independent claims 4, 7, and 21
each includes that that two signals are aligned and that the output of the latch
is one of the signals with a 50% duty cycle. The Examiner in rejecting these
claims has found that Dellow teaches these functions, referring to the trace
of the signals “OUTPUT” and “CLOCK” in Figures 8(a) and 8(b) as
showing the 50% duty cycle and aligned edges. Answer 5. As discussed
above with respect to claim 1, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding as
we find that the trace of “OUPTUT” in Dellow’s Figures 8(a) and 8(b) refers
to the output of multiplexer item 6 and not flip-flop (item 34, which the
Examiner equates to the claimed latch). The Examiner has not found, nor do
we find that Motley or Denham provide a teaching that makes up for this
deficiency. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dellow discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 4, 7, and 21 and
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Dependent
claims 6, 8 through 20, and 22 through 29 are rejected based upon the same
combination of Dellow, Motley, and Denham, thus, we similarly will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

7

Appeal 2009-001791
Application 11/275,835
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 through 29
is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARK DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
8