Ex Parte MaugarsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201613059386 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/059,386 02/16/2011 65913 7590 05/20/2016 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philippe Maugars 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. 81364877 US05 9836 EXAMINER MIAH,LITON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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 PHILIPPE MAUGARS Appeal2014-008192 Application 13/059,386 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15, 16, and 22-29, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 1 Claims 2, 4, 12, 14, and 17-21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. We concur with Appellant's contention the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated 1 Appellant identifies NXP B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008192 Application 13/059,386 by Choi 2 because Choi does not disclose the limitation "to initiate a testing sequence to test a plurality of charge rates," as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 11. 3 App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner finds that Choi discloses the disputed limitation because the steps shown and described in Figure 6 and paragraph 82 of Choi "are sequentially testing plurality of coils; Wherein the plurality of coils is considered as charge rates. Therefore, Choi discloses sequentially testing of charge rates." Ans. 2-3. Appellants argue as follows: In response, Appellant respectfully submits that paragraph [0082] of Choi actually discloses "sequentially driving the sending coils TC 1 to TC 14." Such driving is not equivalent to testing a plurality of charge rates because Choi lacks different charge rates. As depicted in Fig. 6, Choi only depicts determination of whether a feedback signal exists in block S25 after driving a sending coil in block S20. On page 3, the Examiner's i~ .. nsv,rer alleges that "the plurality of coils is considered as charge rates." In response, Appellant respectfully submits that a coil is a physical item, not a charge rate. The claim language requires testing of a plurality of charge rates, subject matter that Choi fails to disclose. Rather than having a relationship between a particular coil and a particular charge rate, Choi discloses that "it is possible to simultaneously drive all of the sending coils" (emphasis added). See paragraph [0091]. Reply Br. 2. 2 US 2009/0033280 Al; published Feb. 5, 2009. 3 Although Appellant argues Choi does not disclose other limitations of claim 1, we do not address them because we find this issue is dispositive. 2 Appeal2014-008192 Application 13/059,386 We agree with Appellant the Examiner errs in finding Choi anticipates claim 1. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). For the reasons argued by Appellant, we agree that the cited portions of Choi relied on by the Examiner do not disclose the limitation at issue. See App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 11 reciting similar limitations. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5-10, 13, 15, 16, and 22-29, which depend variously from claims 1 and 1 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15, 16, and 22-29. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation