12273148 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

Ex Parte Piazza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2016

12273148 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

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. 12/273,148 11/18/2008 William J. Piazza XRPS920080226US1 7755 127893 7590 09/01/2016 Streets & Steele - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 13100 Wortham Center Drive Suite 245 Houston, TX 77065 EXAMINER TORRES RUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WILLIAM J. PIAZZA, JUSTIN BANDHOLZ, and WILLIAM G. PAGAN ____________________ Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before: THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to controlling electrical current supplied to an electronic device by supplying a first portion of a drawn electrical input current to the electronic device. The amount of the first portion may change over time to supply the amount of electrical current demanded by the electronic device without exceeding the predetermined amount. A second portion is supplied to charge an energy storage device during a period that the first portion is less than the predetermined amount. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of controlling electrical current supplied to an electronic device comprising: capping an amount of an electrical input current that may be drawn by the electronic device from a first current source at a predetermined amount of the electrical input current; drawing up to the predetermined amount of the electrical input current from the first current source; supplying a first portion of the drawn electrical input current to the electronic device, wherein the amount of the first portion may change over time to supply the amount of electrical current demanded by the electronic device without exceeding the predetermined amount; supplying a second portion of the drawn electrical input current to charge an energy storage device during a period that the first portion is less than the predetermined amount, wherein Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 3 the second portion is no greater than the difference between the predetermined amount and the first portion; discharging the stored energy device to supply supplemental electrical current to the electronic device in addition to the first portion of electrical input current during a period that the amount of electrical current demanded by the electronic device is greater than the predetermined amount; controlling the operation of the electronic device to prevent the electrical current demand from exceeding the amount of current that can be supplied from the combination of the electrical input current and the stored energy device; and varying the predetermined amount to limit the power consumption of the electronic device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bucur et al. Cha Hartular Margalit US 2004/0178766 A1 US 2005/0242772 A1 US 2006/0187689 A1 US 2008/0029153 A1 Sep. 16, 2004 Nov. 3, 2005 Aug. 24, 2006 Feb. 7, 2008 Sawyers et al. US 7,689,851 B2 Mar. 30, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–3, 5, 10–12, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucur and Sawyers. Claims 4, and 13–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucur, Sawyers, and Cha. Claims 6–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucur, Sawyers, and Margalit. Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 4 Claims 8–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucur, Sawyers, and Hartular. ISSUES The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1) the combination of Bucur and Sawyers teaches or suggests the limitations of capping an amount of an electrical input current that may be drawn by the electronic device from a first current source at a predetermined amount of the electrical input current; drawing up to the predetermined amount of the electrical input current from the first current source; . . . varying the predetermined amount to limit the power consumption of the electronic device as recited in claim 1; and 2) the combination of Bucur, Sawyers, and Hartular teaches or suggests the limitation of “providing the direct current to the battery at a first voltage; and regulating the voltage of the direct current from the first voltage down to a second voltage before supplying electrical current to the electronic device” as recited in claim 8. ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and we adopt them as our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis. With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue that Bucur fails to teach “capping an amount of an electrical input current that may be drawn by the Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 5 electronic device from a first current source at a predetermined amount of the electrical input current” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11–12). In particular, Appellants argue that although Bucur refers to “a predetermined limit”, this term is used in the context of the power management circuit 130 adjusting “the output voltage of the controllable DC power source 104 to be within a predetermined limit of the voltage requirement of the system load” (Bucur, para. 38) and not “a predetermined amount of the electrical input current” (Appellants’ claim 1) (App. Br. 12). Thus, Appellants argue that Bucur fails to disclose capping the electrical input current, and further fails to disclose varying the amount at which the electrical input current is capped (App. Br. 12). We do not agree with the Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Bucur teaches a controllable DC power source (104a) that supplies an input current necessary to supply power to a device (110) (paras. 38–39) (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds and we agree that Bucur teaches a power management circuit (130) that controls an output parameter of the controllable DC power source (104a) that includes a maximum output current of the controllable DC power source (104a) (para. 40) (Ans. 4). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that given that the power management circuit (130) dynamically adjusts the output parameter of the controllable DC power source (104a) through a control signal (133) (paras.30 and 38) (Fig.2) then the maximum output current set by the power management circuit (130) is a capped amount of current supplied by the controllable power source (104a) (para. 38) (Ans. 4) which constitutes the Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 6 varied predetermined amount of electrical input current to the electronic device (i.e., system load 110). With respect to claims 8 and 9, Appellants argue that Hartular fails to mention first and second voltages, and the rejection fails to articulate any reasoning to support this assertion (App. Br. 14). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Hartular teaches decreasing a first voltage to a second voltage (para. 32) thereby reducing a direct current provided to a battery (108) from a first current to a second current (paras. 32–33) (Ans. 6) to meet the demands to a load 110 (i.e., electronic device) (see para. 33). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hartular teaches or suggests “providing the direct current to the battery at a first voltage; and regulating the voltage of the direct current from the first voltage down to a second voltage before supplying electrical current to the electronic device” as recited in claim 8. Accordingly we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, and 9 and the rejections of claims 2–7 and 10–17 which were not argued separately. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that 1) the combination of Bucur and Sawyers teaches and suggests the limitations of capping an amount of an electrical input current that may be drawn by the electronic device from a first current source at a predetermined amount of the electrical input current; drawing up to the predetermined amount of the electrical input current from the first current source; . . . varying the Appeal 2014-001626 Application 12/273,148 7 predetermined amount to limit the power consumption of the electronic device as recited in claim 1; and 2) the combination of Bucur, Sawyers, and Hartular teaches and suggests the limitation of “providing the direct current to the battery at a first voltage; and regulating the voltage of the direct current from the first voltage down to a second voltage before supplying electrical current to the electronic device” as recited in claim 8. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17 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)(1)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED