2021002881 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021)

General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 1, 2021

2021002881 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021)

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. 15/789,000 10/20/2017 Edward Clark Fontana 318738A-1 (GEL8083.346) 1086 62204 7590 10/01/2021 GE GLOBAL PATENT OPERATION GE LICENSING (62204) 901 MAIN AVENUE NORWALK, CT 06851 EXAMINER KHATIB, RAMI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3669 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2021 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): docket@fyiplaw.com rlt@zpspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD CLARK FONTANA and MARK ALLEN JOHNSON Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 Technology Center 3600 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an inductive electric vehicle charger. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for charging an electric vehicle, the method comprising: providing a charger station comprising: a housing defining a cavity; and a docking head stored within the cavity and selectively translatable out therefrom; providing an electric vehicle operable to navigate to a desired destination autonomously, the vehicle comprising a power receiver configured to mate with the docking head to provide charging to the electric vehicle; initiating an interaction between the electric vehicle and the charger station to cause the docking head to rotate out from a downward storage position in the cavity to an upright charging position, so as to enable mating of the docking head and the power receiver, with the charger station being flush or approximately flush with a ground surface when the docking head is in the downward storage position and the docking head being raised above the ground surface when in the upright charging position; aligning, via autonomous operation of the electric vehicle, the docking head and the power receiver of the electric vehicle, so as mate the docking head and the power receiver; and initiating charging of the electric vehicle upon mating of the docking head and the power receiver. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Keith US 5,462,439 Oct. 31, 1995 Brown US 2010/0235006 A1 Sept. 16, 2010 Widmer US 2015/0073642 A1 Mar. 12, 2015 Morin US 2016/0183752 A1 June 30, 2016 Stopp WO 2010/060720 A2 June 3, 2010 Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer and Brown. Final Act. 3. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer, Brown, and Stopp. Final Act. 7. Claims 9–11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer, Brown, and Keith. Final Act. 8. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer, Brown, and Morin. Final Act. 10. OPINION Widmer and Brown Claim 1 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies upon the combination of Widmer and Brown. Critical to this rejection is the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “mating.” The Examiner asserts that a proper interpretation is “to join or fit together: COUPLE.” Ans. 4. The Examiner goes on to explain that “coupling would read on mating.” Id. The Examiner relies on Widmer for teaching this coupling, which is not a physical coupling because Widmer uses near-field charging, which only requires proximity of the charger to the battery and does not involve any physical mating between parts. Appellant argues that, as used throughout the Specification, “the term ‘mate’ refers to how docking head 60 ‘fits into’ power receiver 16” and that the Examiner’s definition of mating is overly broad and should be confined to elements that actually “fit together.” Reply Br. 3. We find this argument persuasive. Claim 1 specifically recites that the charger station housing Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 4 “define[s] a cavity” and that there is also “a docking head stored within the cavity and selectively translatable out therefrom.” Claim 1 further requires “the docking head to rotate out from a downward storage position in the cavity to an upright charging position, so as to enable mating of the docking head and the power receiver.” Claim 1 additionally recites “aligning…the docking head and the power receiver of the electric vehicle, so as [to] mate the docking head and the power receiver.” Given this claim language and the Specification’s use of mating to describe pieces that fit together, we do not agree that near-field charging requiring only proximity of the charger and the battery as taught in Widmer is sufficient to teach this limitation. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has taken an overly broad interpretation of what is meant by “mating” and that it is not met by Widmer’s coupling. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims. Claim 13 As to claim 13, although Appellant does not present the same argument regarding “mating” with respect to claim 13 as we discussed for claim 1, we note that the same claim terms should be interpreted consistently across claims. “[T]he principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if “it is clear” that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims. Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2001); see Digital–Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed.Cir.2012); American Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2011);, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2007).” In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 5 1363 (2016). Here, we see no compelling reason to interpret the claim terms differently between the claims. Accordingly, the terms “mate” and “mating” in claim 13 likewise are distinguishable from the “coupling” interpretation utilized by the Examiner. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner originally “ha[d] not given patentable weight to 94% or greater DC-DC charging efficiency and has broadly interpreted that limitation as improving wireless charging.” Advisory Action 2. In the Answer, the Examiner expanded on the original rejection by noting that Widmer “teaches that the resonant circuit of Fig. 2 may be designed to have a high quality (Q) factor to improve energy transfer efficiency” that “may be 300 or greater.” Ans. 7. The Examiner then pointed to Li as support for this Q factor of 300 translating to an efficiency of 96.7%, thus meeting the claim limitation. Id. As Appellant points out, however, “Li shows that the conditions for obtaining the power transfer efficiency of 96.7% are highly dependent on the coil coupling and the Q factor of both coils.” Reply Br. 11 (emphasis added). As Appellant states, “Widmer does not disclose what the coupling between its two coils is or how it relates to the Q factor” as well as only teaching the Q factor with regard to the resonant circuit and not of both coils. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that “Widmer simply does not provide the details necessary to show the 96.7% theoretical maximum power transfer efficiency described by Li, and the Examiner did not show that such details are inherent” in Widmer. Id. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to carry the burden of showing that Widmer actually teaches the claimed 94% efficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain Appeal 2021-002881 Application 15/789,000 6 the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 or its dependent claims for this additional reason. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16– 20 103 Widmer, Brown 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16– 20 7 103 Widmer, Brown, Stopp 7 9–11, 14, 15 103 Widmer, Brown, Keith 9–11, 14, 15 21 103 Widmer, Brown, Morin 21 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–21 REVERSED