Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2020000336 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2020)

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.
15/772,487 04/30/2018 William J. LAMBERT P91277PCT-
US/111079239357
5044
31817 7590 10/29/2020
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
ZWEIZIG, JEFFERY SHAWN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2849
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM J. LAMBERT and MATHEW MANUSHAROW
Appeal 2020-000336
Application 15/772,487
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s February 8, 2019 final decision to reject claims 1–24 (“Final
Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corporation (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2020-000336
Application 15/772,487

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed generally to a printed circuit board
(PCB) (Abstract). The PCB includes one or more voltage rails, and an
integrated voltage regulator (IVR), which is electrically coupled to supply
current to a voltage rail (Appeal Br. 4). The IVR is included within a central
processing unit (CPU) die (id.). The PCB also includes a PCB current
source, which is electrically coupled to supply a supplementary current to
voltage rail, but the PCB current source is separate from the CPU die (id.).
Claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter (id. at 10):
1. A printed circuit board (PCB), comprising:
one or more voltage rails;
an integrated voltage regulator (IVR) electrically coupled
to supply current to a voltage rail, the IVR included within a
central processing unit (CPU) die; and
a PCB current source electrically coupled to supply a
supplementary current to the voltage rail, the PCB current
source separate from the CPU die.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bassett et al. US 6,947,273 B2 September 20, 2005

Appeal 2020-000336
Application 15/772,487

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bassett. The anticipation rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
over Bassett has been withdrawn (Ans. 5; see Final Act. 3–4).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Bassett discloses a PCB recited in claim 1, as
shown in Bassett’s FIG. 1 (Ans. 3), which is reproduced below:

Bassett’s FIG. 1 illustrates a power regulation system in accordance with its
disclosure.

The Examiner further finds that Bassett discloses a voltage rail, which is the
vertical rail below Vout connected to outputs 102, 104, 106, and 108, and that
items 110, 112, and 114 correspond to the claimed IVR’s, which are
electrically coupled to supply current to the voltage rail (Ans. 3). The
Examiner also finds that Bassett discloses CPU die 128 and PCB current
sources 102, 104, 106, and 108 are electrically coupled to the voltage rail
(id.).
Appeal 2020-000336
Application 15/772,487

4
The Examiner finds that Bassett does not show IVR’s 110, 112, and
114 included within CPU die 128, but Bassett does disclose that each of IVR
110, 112, and 114 includes a sense circuit that may be part of the CPU (id.,
citing Bassett 5:31–32). The Examiner also finds that IVR 110, 112, and
114 may comprise transistors, which are easily integrated components (id.,
citing Bassett, 5:43–47).
The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to miniaturize and streamline manufacturing processes,
and determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate or integrate
IVR 110, 112, and 114 into CPU die 128 for the benefits of miniaturization
and reduced discrete component count (Ans. 3–4).
Appellant contends that the Bassett’s primary IVR’s are components
102, 104, 106, and 108 from FIG. 1, while components 110, 112, and 114
are transient (secondary) regulators, which include current source 204/206
(Appeal Br. 7, citing Bassett, FIG. 2). Therefore, according to Appellant,
Bassett’s IVRs (components 102, 104, 106, and 108) are formed on substrate
132, and not on microprocessor 128 (Appeal Br. 7).
Having considered Appellant’s arguments as set forth in the Appeal
Brief and the Reply Brief, and the Examiner’s position as set forth in the
Answer, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error
in the rejection, essentially for the reasons set forth in the Answer.
In particular, the Examiner has provided a technical explanation of
why Bassett’s components 110, 112, and 114 are appropriately considered
IVRs (Ans. 5–6). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Bassett’s circuit is
designed to maintain the voltage to CPU 128 by preventing the spiking or
bouncing of voltage operating levels (Ans. 5–6, citing Bassett, 1:65–2:1).
Appeal 2020-000336
Application 15/772,487

5
Appellant does not challenge, and hence does not show error in, these
findings (see, Reply Br. 2–3). Moreover, Appellant does not challenge the
Examiner’s reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to incorporate
or integrate IVR’s 110–114 into CPU die 128 (see, Reply Br. 2–3).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 103 Bassett 1–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED