Ex Parte Kapoor et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201613475854 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/475,854 05/18/2012 65913 7590 09/29/2016 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ajay KAPOOR 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 81414716US03 3023 EXAMINER NEVELN, JOSHUA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2116 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJAY KAPOOR, GERARD VILLAR PIQUE, and JOSE DE JESUS PINEDA DE GYVEZ Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-13. Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a control system and a method for controlling the power consumption of an electronic device (Abstract; Spec. 3). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A control system configured to control power consumption of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device communicates with a reader device via a wireless communication interface, the control system comprising: a measuring unit that is configured to measure an actual field strength of an electromagnetic field provided by the reader device to the control system; a power delivery unit that is configured to deliver power received via the electromagnetic field to a plurality of sections of the electronic device; and a control unit, coupled to the measuring unit, that is configured to provide a control signal to the electronic device for controlling the power consumption, wherein the control signal is based on a voltage of a capacitor that changes to track the actual field strength of the electromagnetic field, and the power delivery unit further comprises a power converter that is configured to convert power and supply different power supplies to the plurality of sections of the electronic device. 2 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Collins et al. Fischer Rofougaran US 2002/0097144 Al US 2004/0155753 Al US 2007 /0229262 Al REJECTION July 25, 2002 Aug. 12, 2004 Oct. 4, 2007 Claims 1 and 3-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran (Final Act. 5-11 ). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1and3-13 Appellants contend their claimed invention is not obvious over Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran (App. Br. 5-7). The issues presented by the arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran teaches or suggests "a control unit ... that is configured to provide a control signal to the electronic device for controlling the power consumption, wherein the control signal is based on a voltage of a capacitor that changes to track the actual field strength of the electromagnetic field," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 12? Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the teachings and suggestions of Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran to arrive at Appellants' claimed invention? 3 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue neither Collins nor Fischer discloses a control signal that controls the power consumption, as recited (App. Br. 6). More specifically, Appellants assert the Examiner relies on power consumption that is controlled by reducing the clock frequency when less power is available, whereas Appellants' claims recite control of power consumption, not control of a clock frequency (id. at 6-7). Therefore, Appellants argue, none of the references "allow for such direct control" of power consumption (App. Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the Examiner that Collins teaches the clock signal that controls the power consumption of a device by adjusting the clock rate (Ans. 12). Moreover, the Examiner finds Appellants' Specification controls the digital frequency of the system to control the power consumption (id. (citing Spec. 16: 13- 16) ). Further, Appellants' claims do not preclude the use of the clock frequency as the control signal. Appellants additionally assert the measuring units of Fischer and Collins are not equivalent because the measuring unit of Collins has an amplifier that measures DC signal voltage from the power rectifier in contrast to the measuring unit of Fischer, which has a signal evaluating 4 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 circuit connected to the signal capacitor that does not measure a DC signal voltage (App. Br. 5). Thus, Appellants argue a simple substitution of measuring units is not possible, and the Examiner has not shown the substitution would have been obvious to try (App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2). In response to the Examiner's findings and reasoning, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to show the measurement of a DC voltage in Collins is compatible with Fischer, but instead the Examiner "only alleges that 'both voltages vary"' (Reply Br. 2). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner has set forth with specificity why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the measuring unit of Fischer instead of the measuring unit of Collins (Ans. 9-10). Indeed, the Examiner determines both Collins and Fischer teach "devices that receive an electromagnetic field, which is then converted by a rectifier to produce a DC signal voltage that varies based on the actual field signal strength of the electromagnetic field received by the device. The voltage is then compared to a threshold" (id. at 10-11 ). The Examiner further finds the voltage in Collins is indicated by voltage across a resistor, and, in Fischer, the voltage is indicated across the capacitor UC (id. at 11 ). The Examiner determines both voltages vary as a direct result of the actual field strength of the electromagnetic field powering the device (id.). Appellants' arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of the references. "[T]he test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 414, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Federal Circuit has recognized "[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid 5 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined device was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Id. at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Here, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's articulated reasoning to substitute Fischer's measuring unit for Collins' measuring unit 1s m error. In particular, Appellants have not proffered evidence or argument that the principle of operation would be altered. As the Examiner has set forth, in both Fischer and Collins, the voltages vary as a direct result of the actual field strength of the electromagnetic field powering the device (Ans. 11 ). Thus, we are not persuaded that using Fischer's measuring unit would change the principle of operation of Collins - the Examiner is substituting one measuring unit that measures the actual field strength of an electromagnetic filed for another that performs the same measurement. Additionally, we are not persuaded the combination of Fischer and Collins would fail to achieve predictable results, i.e., varying the voltage as a direct result of the actual field strength of the electromagnetic field powering the device. Next, Appellants argue the Examiner's determination that "both 'are variants that would be obvious to try"' does not apply (App. Br. 6). 6 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 Specifically, Appellants argue Collins teaches voltages across a resistor and Fischer teaches voltage across a capacitor; therefore, according to Appellants, these measuring units do not address the same need or provide solutions to the same need, as both do not measure a DC signal voltage (id.). Therefore, Appellants contend the Examiner has not identified a set of "identified, predictable solutions" (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Although Fischer teaches measuring a voltage across capacitor UC (Fischer i-fi-120, 22), Appellants do not identify any teachings or suggestions in Fischer that would support Appellants' assertion that Fischer "does not measure a DC voltage" (App. Br. 5). Furthermore, Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to show a reasonable expectation of success as the resistor of Collins and the capacitor of Fischer are not equivalent elements (App. Br. 6). Again, we are not persuaded, as Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's findings and reasoning. The Examiner has set forth with specificity why an ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in using Fischer's measuring unit (Ans. 11 ). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claim 1. Additionally, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran to arrive at Appellants' claimed invention. As such, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 3-13, which Appellants do not argue separately. 7 Appeal2015-003420 Application 13/475,854 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Fischer, and Rofougaran is affirmed. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation