Dhananjay Adhikari et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020002725 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2021)

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.
13/367,870 02/07/2012 Dhananjay Adhikari 01.P24749C 9187
119829 7590 04/22/2021
Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP
5 Centerpointe Dr.
Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EXAMINER
BECKER, BRANDON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 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):
docketing@ghmip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DHANANJAY ADHIKARI,
ZHONG NING GEORGE CAI, and
JACOB SCHNEIDER

Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, 7–16, 19–21, and 23–28. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
2
Appellant’s invention is directed to an integrated circuit used in a
processing core for sensing a thermal divergence temperature (Claims 1, 26).
Appellant further claims the integrated circuit as part of a system that
includes a memory (Claim 12).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An integrated circuit comprising:
a processing core;
a temperature sensor to determine a first temperature of the
processing core;
a lookup table to store a temperature value which is a thermal
divergence temperature, wherein the thermal divergence
temperature is a temperature at which continued application of
supply power causes a runaway temperature condition; and
a hardware comparator circuit to compare the first temperature
of the processing core with the stored temperature value,
wherein the hardware comparator circuit is positioned in the
processing core.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 52, and 12–153 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Hermerding (US 2004/0128101 A1; July 1,
2004) in view of He (System Level Leakage Reduction
Considering the Interdependence of Temperature and Leakage,
DAC’04 (2004)).

2 Claim 5 was inadvertently omitted from the statement of rejection (Final
Act. 2). However, the body of the rejection includes findings regarding
claim 5 (Final Act. 4). Accordingly, the Examiner’s omission of claim 5
from the statement of rejection is harmless error.
3 Claim 15 was inadvertently omitted from the statement of rejection (Final
Act. 2). However, the body of the rejection includes findings regarding
claim 15 (Final Act. 7). Accordingly, the Examiner’s omission of claim 15
from the statement of rejection is harmless error.
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
3
2. Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hermerding in view of He, and Acar (US
6,842,714; Jan. 11, 2005).
3. Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hermerding in view of He and Bowden (US
2004/0179576 A1; Sept. 16, 2004).
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hermerding in view of He and Chung (US 2005/0149772 A1;
July 7, 2005).
5. Claims 9, 10, and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hermerding in view of He, and Moyer (US
2008/0056049 A1; Mar. 6, 2008).
6. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hermerding in view of He, and Bhatnagar (US 6,006,996; Dec.
28, 1999).
7. Claims 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hermerding in view of He, Moyer, and Bowden.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 12, and 26
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Hermerding and
He are located on pages 2 to 3 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds that
Hermerding teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1, except for the use of a
lookup table that stores a temperature value that is the thermal divergence
temperature, wherein the thermal divergence temperature is a temperature at
which continued application of supply power causes a runaway temperature
condition (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that Hermerding teaches a
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
4
second embodiment where a lookup table is used to store temperature
values, which include a maximum temperature for a component (Final Act.
2). The Examiner find that He teaches determining a thermal runaway
temperature (i.e., a thermal divergence temperature) in a system level
leakage at which continued application of supply power causes a runaway
temperature condition (Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner finds that He’s
thermal runaway temperature is the same as the thermal divergence
temperature recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to combine Hermerding’s lookup table from the
second embodiment with other embodiments in Hermerding in order to store
a plurality of temperature values from multiple types of processors, leading
to more versatility and accuracy in temperature comparison (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner further concludes that it would have been obvious to use He’s
teaching regarding thermal runaway temperatures to store a thermal
divergence temperature in Hermerding’s lookup table to control and prevent
the integrated circuit chip from overheating (Final Act. 3).
Appellant argues that Hermerding’s lookup table that stores typical
thermal design power (TDP) values at ambient temperature would not have
rendered obvious storing a thermal divergence temperature in the lookup
table (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant contends that Hermerding teaches storing a
maximum temperature for a processor (Tmax) (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant
argues that temperatures above Tmax create a thermal overload condition but
Hermerding does not describe what constitutes a thermal overload (Appeal
Br. 12). Appellant argues that Hermerding does not disclose that Tmax is a
thermal divergence temperature (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant contends that
there is no reason to replace Hermerding’s maximum permissible processor
operating temperature with He’s runaway temperature (Appeal Br. 13).
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
5
Appellant argues that He’s runaway temperature does not correspond to
Hermerding’s maximum permissible processor operating temperature such
that Hermerding’s Tmax is not arbitrarily replaceable with He’s runaway
temperature (Appeal Br. 14). Appellant argues that substituting He’s
runaway temperature for Hermerding’s Tmax would have frustrated
Hermerding’s purpose of ensuring the temperature of all components in a
system are maintained within their functional temperature range (Appeal Br.
14).
The Examiner responds that Appellant uses permissive language (i.e.,
“may be”) in defining thermal divergence temperature (Ans. 4). Based on
this permissive definition, the Examiner considers the prior art (i.e.,
Hermerding and He) teachings to be within a reasonable scope of the phrase
“thermal divergence temperature” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that
including He’s thermal runaway temperature in Hermerding does not
prevent Hermerding from functioning (Ans. 4).
We begin our analysis by construing claim 1. Claim 1 recites an
integrated circuit comprising, in relevant part, “a lookup table to store a
temperature value which is a thermal divergence temperature, wherein the
thermal divergence temperature is a temperature at which continued
application of supply power causes a runaway temperature condition.” The
Examiner’s rejection is based in part on the finding that the phrase “thermal
divergence temperature” is not limited because the Specification uses the
permissive language “may be” in the definition of the phrase (Ans. 4). The
Specification at paragraph 21 discloses “the thermal divergence temperature
may be a temperature at which the continued application of supply power
may cause a runaway condition.” Although the Specification uses the
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
6
phrase “may be” in the definition, claim 1 plainly recites “the thermal
divergence temperature is a temperature at which continued application of
the supply power causes a runaway temperature condition.” (emphasis
added). Claim 1 makes explicit the meaning of thermal divergence
temperature. The Examiner does not address this specific language
regarding “thermal divergence temperature” in claim 1 (Final Act. generally,
Ans. generally).
We find that the Specification describes that a leakage power
shutdown temperature may be a temperature at which temperature and
leakage power become self-reinforcing and causes a runaway condition
(Spec. ¶ 18). In the context of the Specification, we understand “runaway
condition” to mean that the temperature and leakage power produce a self-
reinforcing or self-sustaining condition where temperature and heat continue
to increase. Accordingly, we understand “thermal divergence temperature”
to be a temperature at which a self-reinforcing condition exists between
temperature and supply power such that temperature continues to increase.
With this construction in mind, we find the Examiner has not
explained sufficiently why it would have been obvious to substitute He’s
runaway temperature for Tmax stored in Hermerding’s lookup table (Final
Act. 3). The Examiner’s rationale for the combination is to prevent the
integrated circuit from overheating (Final Act. 3). However, as argued by
Appellant Hermerding already monitors and adjusts cooling to maintain the
components at a desired temperature and below Tmax, the maximum
operating temperature of the component (Appeal Br. 14). Indeed,
Hermerding discloses that the objective of thermal management in electrical
devices is to ensure that the temperature of all components in a system are
maintained within their functional temperature range (Hermerding ¶ 3).
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
7
Hermerding teaches that temperatures exceeding the maximum operating
limit of a component may result in irreversible changes in the operating
characteristics of the component (Hermerding ¶ 3). Hermerding teaches
Tmax is the maximum temperature of the processor (¶ 35). Hermerding
teaches that once the processor reaches its maximum operating temperature
(Tmax), a thermal control circuit reduces the processor temperature by
controlling the duty cycle of the processor clocks (¶ 19). In other words,
Hermerding seeks to prevent temperatures exceeding the maximum
operating temperature of the processor.
Although the Examiner finds that Hermerding’s Tmax is within the
scope of “thermal divergence temperature”, we disagree in that the properly
construed claim requires that the thermal divergence temperature is a
temperature at which continued application of supply power causes a self-
reinforcing condition between supply power and temperature such that the
temperature continues to rise. The Examiner has not shown that at
Hermerding’s Tmax such a self-reinforcing condition exists. Rather,
Hermerding teaches that temperatures above the maximum operating
temperature should be avoided because they can cause irreversible changes
in the operating characteristics of the component (Hermerding ¶ 3). In light
of Hermerding’s teachings, the Examiner’s proposed substitution to use He’s
runaway temperature in lieu of Hermerding’s Tmax lacks rational
underpinnings. The Examiner has not explained why it would have been
obvious to use a runaway temperature as in He in place of Tmax in
Hermerding. The Examiner’s sole rationale for the modification
Hermerding to include He’s runaway temperature is based on preventing
overheating of the integrated circuit chip (Final Act. 3). Based on
Hermerding’s disclosures, using the maximum operating temperature
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
8
provides the signal to effect the desired thermal control over the circuit
components (¶ 38). Accordingly, the Examiner has not explained
sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Hermerding’s integrated circuit to include He’s runaway temperature.
The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 further relies on
Moyer and Bowden in rejecting the claim (Final Act. 14). However, the
basic combination of Hermerding and He are still required by this rejection
(Final Act. 14). Moyer and Bowden do not cure any of the deficiencies
noted above in the rejection of claim 1 based on Hermerding and He.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 26 is faulty for the same reasons discussed
with regard to claim 1.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of record.
DECISION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 12–
15
103 Hermerding, He 1, 2, 5, 12–
15
3, 16 103 Hermerding, He,
Acar
3, 16
7, 8, 19, 20 103 Hermerding, He,
Bowden
7, 8, 19, 20
11 103 Hermerding, He,
Chung
11
9, 10, 23–
25
103 Hermerding, He,
Moyer
9, 10, 23–25
21 103 Hermerding, He,
Bhatnagar
21
26–28 103 Hermerding, He,
Moyer, Bowden
26–28
Appeal 2020-002725
Application 13/367,870
9
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 7–
16, 19–21,
23–28

REVERSED