Ex Parte Sutardja

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

12013118 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018)

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.
12/013,118 01/11/2008 Sehat Sutardja MP1662 7968
26703 7590 02/09/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. (Marvell)
5445 CORPORATE DRIVE
SUITE 200
TROY, MI 48098
EXAMINER
COTOV, JONATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2018 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):
s stevens @ hdp .com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEHAT SUTARDJA1
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
Technology Center 3700
Before KEN B. BARRETT, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Marvell World Trade Ltd. as the real party
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Sehat Sutardja (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s October 19, 2015, non-final decision rejecting claims 1-16, 18,
30^15, and 47.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “control systems and methods
that adjust operation of a controlled device based on sensed temperature.”
Spec. ^ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from page 13 (Claims Appendix) of
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A temperature sensing system, comprising:
N temperature sensing circuits connected in series in
different locations within a computing system, each including
one of N diodes, wherein N is an integer greater than one; and
a control module that includes a first terminal in
communication with one of the N temperature sensing circuits,
the control module configured to i) receive a combined voltage
of the N temperature sensing circuits at the first terminal, and
ii) calculate an average temperature of the N temperature
sensing circuits based on the combined voltage.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 18, 30, 35, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kuwabara (JP 2006-073887 A, published
Mar. 16, 2006).
2 Claims 17, 19-29, 46, and 48-79 are canceled. Appeal Br. 16, 19 (Claims
App.).
2
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
Claims 2 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwabara and Pippin (US 2004/0047099 Al, published
Mar. 11,2004).
Claims 3-5 and 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kuwabara and Goetz (US 2007/0210818 Al,
published Sept. 13, 2007).
Claims 7-9, 13, 15, 36-38, 40, and 42^14 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuwabara and Russell
(US 7,052,143 B2, issued May 30, 2006).
Claims 10 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwabara, Russell, and Carey (US 5,482,210, issued Jan.
9, 1996).
Claims 14 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwabara, Russell, and Dobbs (US 6,891,347 B2, issued
May 10, 2005).
Claims 16 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuwabara, Russell, and Frankel (US 6,725,132 B2, issued
Apr. 20, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner finds that Kuwabara discloses ah of the elements of
independent claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Kuwabara 18, 19, 22, 31,
3
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
38, Fig. 2).3 In particular, the Examiner finds that Kuwabara teaches a
temperature sensing system including a control module that calculates an
average temperature of a plurality of temperature sensing circuits based on
the combined voltage of the circuits. Id. (citing Kuwabara ]} 22).
Specifically, the Examiner states “a change in temperature is determined by
the output voltage of formula (1) where part of the formula is the voltage of
each diode is taken and combined, vl, (vl) and the number of diodes used.”
Id. (boldface font omitted). The Examiner also determines that “a person
could calculate the average temperature of the diodes.” Ans. 17. The
Examiner makes similar findings regarding independent claim 30. Non-
Final Act. 4-5.
Appellant traverses, arguing, inter alia, that “Kuwabara . . . fails to
disclose calculating an average temperature of N sensing circuits and instead
merely discloses determining a change in temperature.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant also argues that the recitation “configured to . . . calculate an
average temperature” should be given patentable weight. Reply Br. 3—4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
Claim 1 recites, “the control module configured to . . . calculate an
average temperature of the N temperature sensing circuits based on the
combined voltage.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Specification states,
“When the voltage change indicates that the average temperature of the
3 The Examiner cites to a “machine translation” of Kuwabara. See Non-
Final Act. 3. Appellant likewise appears to cite to a similar machine
translation. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 5 (citing to Kuwabara]} 10). Unless
otherwise indicated, our citations herein to Kuwabara also refer to a machine
translation of Kuwabara, obtained via the European Patent Office website.
4
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
diodes 120 is above a threshold, the control module 106 turns on a
controlled device and/or adjusts an operating parameter of the controlled
device.” Spec. ^ 77. The Specification further states that “the voltage Vbe
measured at the control module 106, as well as the corresponding voltage
change AVbe, is indicative of an average temperature change in locations
corresponding to each of the diodes 120.” Id. ^ 80. In the context of claim
1, and when read in light of the Specification, the term “configured to” is
used to describe the construction (i.e. the configuration) of the module and
sensing circuits rather than simply an intended use of these components.
The relevant question, therefore, is whether Kuwabara’s device is likewise
constructed for calculating an average temperature of its temperature sensing
circuits.
As correctly noted by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 5), Kuwabara
discloses a temperature sensor for a solid-state imaging device, such as a
mobile phone camera. Kuwabara 1,3. Increased temperatures cause
poor image quality, so known cameras use a diode to sense the temperature.
Id. 4-5. However, the diode output with respect to temperature change is
small. Id. 6. Kuwabara’s device, therefore, uses a plurality of diodes,
connected in series, to generate a relatively larger voltage output. Id. 10.
Accordingly, Kuwabara provides a plurality of diodes, and uses the sum of
the individual measured voltages to determine the temperature of the device.
Id. Tflj 18-19. Indeed, the formula cited by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act.
3) calculates the sum of these diode voltages:
Vout = VDD - 4 X (2 X I X L/q/Cox/W)1/2 - (Vtl + Vt2 + Vt3 + Vt4)
5
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
where Vtl-Vt4 are individual measured voltages. Kuwabara 21-22; see
also Kuwabara (Japanese version) 22 (illustrating the formula reproduced
above).
Kuwabara, however, does not disclose calculating an average
temperature of the sensing circuits, and the Examiner does not direct our
attention to the disclosure of a control module configured to calculate the
average as recited in claim 1. Cf. Ans. 16 (the Examiner making the finding,
without a citation, that Kuwabara teaches the calculation of an average); id.
at 17 (finding that a person, rather than a control module, could calculate the
average). Nor would use of such an average temperature be in accordance
with Kuwabara’s intention to use the sum of multiple voltage measurements
instead of a single voltage measurement. See, e.g., Kuwabara ^ 10.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor of its dependent
claims 6, 11, 12, and 18, as being anticipated by Kuwabara.
Independent claim 30 recites, inter alia, “calculating an average
temperature of the N temperature sensing circuits based on the combined
voltage.” Appeal Br. 16-17 (Claims App.). For the same reasons as
discussed with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
30, nor of its dependent claims 35 and 47, as being anticipated by Kuwabara.
Obviousness Rejections
The secondary references are not relied upon by the Examiner in any
manner that would remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to the
6
Appeal 2016-007710
Application 12/013,118
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 30.4 Non-Final Act.
6- 17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5,
7- 10, 13-16, 31-34, and 36-45 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara in
combination with one or more of Pippin, Goetz, Russell, Carey, Dobbs, and
Frankel.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16, 18, 30^15, and 47 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4 For example, although the Examiner correctly notes that Russell discloses
using an average temperature to control the fan in a projector (Non-Final
Act. 9; Russell 4:16-24), the Examiner has not explained how such teaching
accords with Kuwabara’s purpose of using the sum of multiple voltage
readings as discussed above.
7