Ex Parte Taylor et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 201713285762 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) 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. 13/285,762 10/31/2011 Joshua B. Taylor 13746-61 (BH2134.1) 6801 28533 7590 BGL/Alticor BRINKS GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER CHAMPAGNE, LUNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2017 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 JOSHUA B. TAYLOR, DAVID W. BAARMAN, and SCOTT A. MOLLEMA Appeal 2015-0046241 Application 13/285,762 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§134 and 6. The invention relates generally to charging for access to wireless charging power. Spec. 120. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system for payment processing and wireless power delivery comprising: 1 The Appellants identify Access Business Group International LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-004624 Application 13/285,762 a receiver for receiving payment information from a device; a processor configured to process the payment information upon confirmation of the payment information from the device; and a wireless power supply disposed near the receiver and configured to provide wireless power to the device at least while the payment information is received from the device or processed. Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi (US 7,996,238 B2, iss. Aug. 9, 2011). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi and Woodnorth (US 2003/0034757 Al, pub. Feb. 20, 2003). Claims 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi and Englebardt (US 7,988,058 B2, iss. Aug. 2, 2011). Claims 12—15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi and Maes (US 8,260,253 B2, iss. Sept. 4, 2012). Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi, Maes, and Woodnorth. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi, Maes, and Brown (US 2009/0088077 Al, pub. Apr. 2, 2009). Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ochi, Maes, and Englebardt. We AFFIRM. 2 Appeal 2015-004624 Application 13/285,762 ANALYSIS Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10 We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that Ochi does not disclose providing wireless power while the payment information is received or processed, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3—6; see also Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner cites Ochi, column 32, line 60 to column 33, line 18 (Final Act. 3), which discloses that “the power transmission determining function 112 determines whether precedence charging is possible in accordance with policies (S3101), and if precedence charging is possible, the procedure proceeds to the sequence of starting charging described above with FIG. 21 prior to authentication and billing.” Ochi, col. 32,1. 65—col. 33 1. 4 (emphasis omitted). Relative to this disclosure, the Appellants assert that “Ochi describes ‘precedence charging’ in which ‘the procedure proceeds to the sequence of starting charging . . . prior to authentication and billing . . . ’, but does not include providing wireless power while the payment information is received or processed.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3. We disagree with the Appellants. Ochi further discloses “the fourth electrical charging system includes a charging determination procedure which is improved to enable precedence charging before authentication.” Ochi, col. 10,11. 53—59. Ochi explains “fourth electrical charging system is a system for eliminating waiting for authentication.” Id. at col. 11 11. 3^4. Ochi further explains that the “system enables charging to be preferentially started after the primary charging determination by providing a setting to grant precedence charging in the electrical power supplier side policy. At 3 Appeal 2015-004624 Application 13/285,762 the secondary charging determination thereafter, stricter authentication is executed in parallel with charging.” Id. at col. 11 11. 5—13. This meets the claim language “to provide wireless power to the device at least while the payment information is received from the device or processed.” For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 10 that were rejected along with claim 1, for which no separate argument is advanced. Appeal Br. 6. Claims 12—15 Independent claim 12 recites, among other limitations, “providing, with a wireless power supply, wireless power to the wireless device while the payment information is requested or received.” We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ arguments that essentially argue, similar to the arguments for claim 1, that Ochi requires the charging to be completed before billing commences. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons we set forth above at claim 1. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 12, as well as for dependent claims 13—15 that were rejected along with claim 12, and for which no separate argument is advanced. Appeal Br. 6. Claim 18 Independent claim 18 recites: 18. A wireless charging system comprising: a detector that automatically detects a presence of a wireless device when within range and identifies the device; a billing processor coupled with the detector and operative to verify a payment from the wireless device upon detection, 4 Appeal 2015-004624 Application 13/285,762 wherein the billing processor receives payment information from the wireless device upon verification; and a power supply coupled with the billing processor and operative to automatically provide wireless power to the wireless device upon the authorization of the payment from the billing processor. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the combination of Ochi and Maes fails to disclose payment verification upon detection followed by the payment information receipt upon the payment verification. Appeal Br. 7—8; see also Reply Br. 5. We construe the meaning of the term “verify.” The Specification describes “[t]he verification/authorization by the device may include a simple confirmation to submit payment. Spec. 132; see also ]j 42 (“the consumer may need to affirmatively reply to the email or SMS message for verification.”). We, thus, construe “verification” as a confirmation by a user that payment will be made. Ochi discloses a user providing confirmation that payment will be made through the user profile which is checked by the charging system before initiating billing. Ochi, col. 9,11. 10-17 (“includes a user side charging policy and the power transmitting device includes an electrical power supplier side power transmitting policy in the second electrical charging system, the system can check both of the devices and matches both of the policies so that the device can be charged without successively obtaining explicit grant for charging from the user.”) Ochi discloses the “user’s policy can describe a fee setting, a billing system setting” and so on. Id. at col. 9,11. 32—34. Next, Ochi authorizes payment, in that “[f]urther in the second electrical charging system, the power transmitting device can arbitrarily use the authentication/billing proxy device to determine validity 5 Appeal 2015-004624 Application 13/285,762 of the user or the portable electronic device and request a proxy billing.” Id. at col. 9,11. 41^44. Ochi, thus, meets the claim language of verifying “a payment from the wireless device upon detection, wherein the billing processor receives payment information from the wireless device upon verification.” Maes is, thus, a cumulative reference. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19—22 Dependent claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19-22 are not argued separately. Appeal Br. 6, 8. We affirm the separate rejections of these claims for the same reasons as the independent claims from which they depend. DECISION We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation