Ex Parte Hart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201813621103 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/621,103 09/15/2012 Gregory M. Hart 085101-527116.74CNUS00 5360 136608 7590 02/02/2018 AMAZON POLSINELLI 1000 LOUISIANA STREET FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR HOUSTON, TX 77002 EXAMINER TRUONG, NGUYEN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): POL-ATI@polsinelli.com bvo @polsinelli. com c adocket @ polsinelli. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY M. HART and JEFFREY P. BEZOS Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,1031 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ Non-Final Rejection of claims 2, 3, 6—10, 13—16, 18, 20, and 21, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.2 1 Appellants identify AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed September 15, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 22, 2016 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed October 6, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a remote display system and method by which “a portable display . . . wirelessly receives data and power from a primary station,” where the “primary station, which is remote from and without a tangible connection with the portable display, includes a data transmitting element and a power transmitting element,” and the “portable display includes a power receiving element that receives power wirelessly from the power transmitting element and a data receiving element operable to receive data from the data transmitting element.” Abstract. In one embodiment of Appellants’ system, “a primary station network . . . includes multiple primary stations . . . , each with an associated communication range,” and when “a user is holding a portable display and travelling through the communication ranges,” the system “may coordinate power transmission between the [multiple] primary stations.” Spec. ^fl[ 60-61. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A computer implemented method, comprising: under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, detecting that a portable display is within range of a first primary station of a plurality of primary stations, the portable display including a power receiving element and a data receiving element, wherein the first primary station includes a data transmitting element and a power transmitting element; wirelessly receiving power from the power transmitting element of the first primary station through the power receiving element of the portable display; Answer mailed February 21, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). We note a previous Examiner’s Answer mailed January 13, 2017 provided the same “Response to Argument” as the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 21, 2017. 2 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 wirelessly receiving a first data signal from the data transmitting element of the first primary station through the data receiving element of the portable display; and displaying, on the portable display, first data corresponding to the first data signal while powering the portable display using the power that was received from the first primary station; detecting that the portable display is within range of a second primary station of the plurality of primary stations, wherein the second primary station includes a power transmitting element and a data transmitting element; determining that a difference in power signal strength between a first power signal of the first primary station and a second power signal of the second primary station exceeds a first threshold for wirelessly receiving power from the power transmitting element of the second primary station and through the power receiving element of the portable display; wirelessly receiving power from the power transmitting element of the second primary station through the power receiving element of the portable display; determining that a difference in data signal strength between the first data signal of the first primary station and a second data signal of the second primary station exceeds a second threshold for wirelessly receiving data from the second primary station through the data receiving element of the portable display; selecting a different primary station of the plurality of primary stations from which to receive data based at least in part on the difference in data signal strength exceeding the second threshold, the different primary station being separate from the second primary station; wirelessly receiving second data from a data transmission element of the different primary station through the data receiving element of the portable display; and updating the portable display to display the second data received from the different primary station while powering the portable display using the power that was received from the second primary station. 3 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 (App. Br. 25—26 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yamasuge (US 2009/0264069 Al, published Oct. 22, 2009), Kurs et al. (US 2010/0109445 Al, published May 6, 2010, “Kurs”), Shimizu et al. (US 2007/0185382 Al, published Aug. 9, 2007, “Shimizu”), Higashide (US 2009/0247167 Al, published Oct. 1, 2009), and Clevenger et al. (US 2009/0312046 Al, published Dec. 17, 2009, “Clevenger”). (Final Act. 3—17.) (2) Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yamasuge, Kurs, Shimizu, Higashide, Clevenger, and Tamura (US 2010/0156835 Al, published June 24, 2010). (Final Act. 17—18.) (3) Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yamasuge, Kurs, Shimizu, Higashide, Clevenger, and Knowles et al. (US 2007/0198634 Al, published Aug. 23, 2007, “Knowles”). (Final Act. 19-20.) (4) Claims 8, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yamasuge, Kurs, Shimizu, Higashide, Clevenger, and Tseng (US 2008/0186210 Al, published Aug. 7, 2008). (Final Act. 20-21.) ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Shimizu does not disclose or suggest the limitations: (1) “a difference in power signal strength between a first power signal of the first primary station and a second power signal of the second primary station exceeds a first threshold” and (2) “wirelessly receiving power from the power transmitting element of the second primary station 4 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 through the power receiving element of the portable display,” as recited in independent claim 2, and in similar limitations of independent claims 9 and 16. (Reply Br. 9; see also App. Br. 20, 22—23.) In particular, Appellants argue “Shimizu does not disclose a first primary station and a second primary station,” rather, “Shimizu at best discloses orthogonal power transmitting antenna (B11 and B12, both parts of antenna B1 in Figure 5), that are parts of a single primary station.” (App. Br. 19—20 (citing Shimizu Figs. 3, 5, power supply antennas bl 1 and b 12); Reply Br. 9). We agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner cites Shimizu’s antennas bl 1 and bl2 as disclosing “two power supplying sources” from which “a power supplying source” is selected based on determining a power signal strength. (Ans. 3; see also Non-Final Act. 6.) We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “‘primary station’ as meaning simply a ‘power supplying source’” (as in Shimizu) is inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification and claim.3 (Reply Br. 6—7.) Particularly, Appellants’ Specification describes multiple primary stations that are not merely power supplying sources or “power supplying components of the same station.” (Reply Br. 7—8 (citing Spec. 60—64, Figs. 3 and 7).) Rather, as specified in claim 2, the “second primary station” is “separate from” another “primary station,” and each of the first and second “primary stations” includes its own respective components (“a data transmitting element and a power transmitting element”). (App. Br. 25—26 (Claims App.).) 3 We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 5 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 In contrast to the claimed first and second primary stations, Shimizu merely discloses a “receiver 2 includ[ing] an antenna unit 31 that performs communications with [a] pill [swallowed capsule-type endoscope],” in which the “antenna unit 31 includes a plurality of receiving antennas A1 to An and a plurality of power supply antennas B1 to Bm.” (Shimizu ]ff[ 5, 34, 35). “[T]he power supply antenna B1 includes power supply antennas bl 1 (first power-supply signal transmitting unit) and bl2 (second power-supply signal transmitting unit) that are two coil members having different directivities” enabling a “switching circuit 45 to select a power supply antenna that is capable of performing the most effective power supply” for the pill. (See Shimizu ]ff[ 48, 54.) Thus, Shimizu’s orthogonal power transmitting antennas bl 1 and bl2 (of antenna Bl) “are parts of a single primary station, where there is a single switching circuit (45) connected to multiple power supply antenna (Bl, B2, Bm)” of Shimizu’s receiver. (App. Br. 20 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 9.) In addition, we find the Examiner has not provided sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In particular, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to “apply the method of Shimizu to the system of Yamasuge and Kurs such that a primary station among a plurality of primary stations is selected to transmit power based on its power signal strength.'’’ (Ans. 3 (emphasis added).) As discussed supra, Shimizu does not disclose multiple primary stations, and does not select a primary station from multiple power supplying primary stations. Additionally, as recognized by the Examiner: 6 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 Yamasuge and Kurs do not teach determining that a difference in power signal strength between a first power signal of the first primary and a second power signal of the second primary station at least meets a first threshold, [and] wirelessly receiving power from the power transmitting element of the second primary station and through the power receiving element of the portable display.” (Non-Final Act. 5.) In re Chaganti, 2014, WL 274514, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not enough to say that... to do so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. ’ Such circular reasoning is not sufficient — more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.”) The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Higashide and Clevenger make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Shimizu, Yamasuge, and Kurs. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 2, 9, and 16, and the rejection of dependent claims 3,10, and 18, which incorporate the same limitations due to their dependency from claims 2, 9, and 16, respectively. The Examiner relies on Tamura, Knowles, and Tseng, to teach various features of dependent claims 6—8, 13—15, 20, and 21. Appellants argue claims 6—8, 13—15, 20, and 21 on the same basis as independent claims 2, 9, and 16, from which these claims depend. (App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 10.) As the Examiner does not rely on Tamura, Knowles, and Tseng to cover the noted deficiencies of the combination of Yamasuge, Kurs, Shimizu, Higashide, and Clevenger, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6—8, IS IS, 20, and 21. Because the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments as to the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16. 7 Appeal 2017-006299 Application 13/621,103 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6—10, 13—16, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation