11372228 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Taniguchi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 30, 2012

11372228 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 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. 11/372,228 03/10/2006 Junya Taniguchi 00990095AA 2343 30743 7590 05/31/2012 WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C. 11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD SUITE 340 RESTON, VA 20190 EXAMINER VALONE, THOMAS F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2858 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2012 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 JUNYA TANIGUCHI and AKIFUMI KANEKO ____________ Appeal 2009-012673 Application 11/372,228 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2009-012673 Application 11/372,228 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is a power supply system capable of shutting down a power supply upon detection of an overload due to reverse insertion of a device (Spec. 1:4-6; 2:24-27). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A power supply method for a device under test comprising the steps of: applying a power supply voltage to the device under test, continuously monitoring the power supply voltage from a rise time instant of the power supply voltage at the start of application of the power supply voltage to the device under test, and shutting down the power supply voltage to the device under test if the power supply voltage does not reach a set value in a preselected time period from a start of application of the power supply voltage to the device under test. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mizuno (Japanese Publication No. JP1264695, October 20, 1989) and Thiery (US Patent Application 7,064,946 B2, June 20, 2006). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of. Mizuno, Thiery, and Singh (US Patent Application 6,625,758 B1, September 23, 2003). Appeal 2009-012673 Application 11/372,228 3 ANALYSIS Appellants contend neither Mizuno nor Thiery is directed to a device under test. Appellants also assert Mizuno does not continuously monitor the power supply voltage or shut down the power supply voltage if it does not reach a set value in a preselected time, as claimed (Br. 23). The Examiner finds Mizuno does include a device under test and Thiery is in an analogous field (Ans. 11). We agree. Additionally, we agree Thiery was cited for action taken during a preselected time period for a voltage comparison procedure (Ans. 11), and therefor would lend itself to suggesting to one of skill in the art to apply “Mizuno’s power supply test in a preselected time period from the start of application of the power supply voltage and shut it down if it did not reach a set value, for the benefit of having a finite, uniform time for each test, as suggested by Thiery” (Ans. 4). We also agree with the Examiner’s findings on pages 12-13 of the Answer. Thus, for these reasons, we find claims 1, 3, and 7-10 obvious over the combination of Mizuno and Thiery. The Examiner cited Singh in combination with Mizuno and Thiery in rejecting dependent claims 5 and 11-14. Claim 5 recites “supplying a power supply voltage to a plurality of devices under test” (emphasis added) and claims 5 and 11-14 recite “the power supply system comprises a plurality of sockets” and a “counter switch sequentially switching connection between the sockets and the power supply.” As Appellants assert, Singh teaches a robotic arm for system level testing (Br. 33-34). The Examiner cites Figures 1 and 2 and column 4, lines 1-10 of Singh for supplying a voltage to a device under test (Ans. 8-9 and 13). This section of Singh mentions a motherboard and a daughterboard, but Appeal 2009-012673 Application 11/372,228 4 says nothing about supplying a power supply voltage to a “plurality of devices under test.” Additionally, Singh tests one device at a time contrary to the Examiner’s assertions (see Singh’s Figs. 1and 2 and Abstract). Further, Singh’s robotic arm is not a counter switch that switches between sockets and power supply, as is claimed (Br. 33-34). Thus, we find claims 5 and 11-14 not obvious over the collective teachings of Mizuno, Thiery and Singh. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 7-10 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5 and 11-14 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART pgc