Ex Parte WATERS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2018

13918137 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/918,137 06/14/2013
23494 7590 05/16/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Deric Wayne WATERS
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.
TI-72596 3278
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, ZAHID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte DERIC WAYNE WATERS
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918,137
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 App.
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918, 137
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to an
electronic device (102) including a universal serial bus power delivery
(USB-PD) (104) coupled to a controller (202), which transitions the USB-
PD port (104) from an unpowered state (308) to a check internal power state
(310) when the USB-PD (104) is ready to power a USB cable (210). Spec. i-f
3, Figs. 2, and 3.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a universal serial bus power delivery (USB-PD) port for
at least the delivery of power; and
a USB-PD controller to control a state of power delivery
by the USB-PD port out of a plurality of states;
wherein the USB-PD controller transitions the USB-PD port
from an unpowered state to a check internal power state when
the USB-PD port is ready to power the USB cable.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13, 15-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Scott et al. (US 2011/0016333 Al, Jan. 20,
2011). Final Act. 3-7.
Claims 2, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Scott and Asbury et al. (US 7,447,922 Bl Nov. 4, 2008).
Final Act. 8-9.
2
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918, 137
Claims 6, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Scott and Keppeler (US 2006/0224791 Al, Oct. 5, 2006).
Final Act. 9--1 0.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments, seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4---6. 2
Anticipation Re} ection
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Scott describes a
universal serial bus power delivery (USB-PD) port for the delivery of power,
as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant
argues Scott's disclosure of a bidirectional power connector for passively
conducting current between two devices describes a USB cable, but not a
USB-PD port, which includes a policy engine, a protocol layer, and a
physical layer. Id. (citing Scott i-f 24).
These arguments are not persuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. In particular, claim 1 does not
recite the USB-PD port embodiment argued above, which includes the cited
elements. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the Specification indicates
that the USB-PD port, must be construed according to its function (not its
name) as being a flexible platform or an interface for interconnecting
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings and
conclusions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 4,
2016) ("App. Br."), the Final Action from which the appeal was taken
(mailed August 6, 2015) ("Final Act."), and the Answer (mailed June 24,
2016) ("Ans.") for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918, 137
multiple devices. Ans. 8-11 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 11, 13). Consequently, the
Examiner relies upon the cited portions of the Specification as a guide to
broadly but reasonably construe the USB-PD port as an interface that
interconnects two or more devices. Id. We note the Examiner's proffered
claim construction is unchallenged and unrebutted by Appellant. Because
the power transfer connector (PTC) disclosed in Scott similarly serves as an
interface for interconnecting two devices, we agree with the Examiner that
the PTC describes the USB-PD port, as broadly recited in claim 1. Id. at 10-
11 (citing Scott i-fi-12, 22, 24--26). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3-5, because Appellant
has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the rejection of claim 7, Appellant reiterates the same
arguments set forth above. App. Br. 5. With respect to this claim, these
arguments are persuasive. We note that claim 7 recites an embodiment of
USB-PD port that includes a policy engine to control the state of the USB-
PD port by transitioning it from unpowered state into a check internal power
state. Claims App'x. The Examiner incorrectly relies upon Scott's power
management module (210) [external to the power transfer connector (212),
which the Examiner finds corresponds to the claimed USB-PD port] to
describe both the claimed the USB-PD controller as well as the policy
engine. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Scott i-fi-124--26). Because the disclosed power
4
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918, 137
management module (210) is external to the PTC (212), whereas the claim
requires that the policy engine be included in the USB-PD port, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the cited portions of Scott describe the USB-
PD port.
Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 7.
Because dependent claims 9--13, 15, 16 recite the disputed limitations
of claim 7 discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of the cited claims for the same reason set forth above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 17, Appellant reiterates the same
arguments as discussed above. App. Br. 6. These arguments are not
persuasive for the same reasons set forth in our discussion of claim 1 above.
Claim 1 7 recites a policy engine for transitioning the USB-PD from an
unpowered state to a check internal power state. Claims App 'x. The
Examiner finds that Scott's power management module describes the policy
engine. Final Act. 5. Because the Examiner finds this claim does not
preclude the policy engine from being external to the USB-PD port, and
Appellant has not challenged the Examiner's finding on this point, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 17.
Regarding the rejection of claim 20, because Appellant has either not
presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 17
above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2017-002995
Application 13/918, 137
Obviousness Rejections
Because claims 2 and 6 stand or fall with independent claim 1, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of the cited claims. App. Br. 6.
Because claims 18 and 19 stand or fall with independent 1 7, we
sustain Examiner's rejection of the cited claims. Id.
Because claims 8 and 14 stand or fall with independent claim 7, we do
not sustain the rejection cited claims. Id.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-6 and 17-20.
However, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 7-16 as set forth
above.
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-IN-PART
6