Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2021

2020005856 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 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.
13/970,340 08/19/2013 Chun-Kil JUNG P93552C2 4922
72517 7590 11/18/2021
Shichrur & Co.
Horowitz Tower
2 Moti Kind St., 7th Floor, Suite 521
Rehovot, 7638523
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
HERNANDEZ, MANUEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2021 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):
DocketingUS@ShichrurLaw.com
Yael@ShichrurLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUN-KIL JUNG
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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, 3–7 and 9–12. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a non-contact power charging system (see,
e.g., claim 1) and a method of controlling the charging operation (see, e.g.,
claim 7). Claim 1, reproduced below with the limitations most at issue
italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-contact power transmitting apparatus
comprising:
a primary charge core which generates a magnetic field
to wirelessly transmit a power signal to a power receiving
apparatus;
a received signal processing module which processes a
signal received from the power receiving apparatus and sends
the processed signal to a central control unit, the signal
including information on a received power of the power
receiving apparatus and a request to lower a level of the power
signal if any one of voltage and current measured in the
receiving apparatus due to the received power is greater than
an upper limit of a predetermined range, and a request to raise
a level of the power signal if anyone of voltage and current
measured in the receiving apparatus due to the received power
is less than a lower limit of the predetermined range;
a central control unit which interrupts or suspends
charging operation of the non-contract power transmitting
apparatus if a loss in the power signal is detected due to
changes of the magnetic field by a foreign substance, wherein
the central control unit determines the loss based on changes in
a load on the primary charge core caused by the foreign
substance; and
wherein the central control unit is to increase or
decrease the level of the power signal in response to the request
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340

3
to maintain a stable power level2 at the power receiving
apparatus during battery charging.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Stevens US 2007/0228833 A1 Oct. 4, 2007
Belyanin US 2007/0247883 A1 Oct. 25, 2007
Baarman US 2008/0079392 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Kato US 2008/0164839 A1 July 10, 2008

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–7, and 10–12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevens in view of Baarman and
Belyanin. Final Act. 2.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stevens in view of Baarman, Belyanin, and further
in view of Kato. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
The Examiner acknowledges that Stevens’s signal processing module
(Fig. 12: RFID unit 710) fails to include requests to lower or raise the level
of a signal received from the power receiving apparatus (Fig. 1: secondary

2 We note that there is no antecedent basis for “the request to maintain a
stable power level” in claim 1. There is, however, no rejection for us to
review on this issue and the indefiniteness of the phrase does not prevent us
from reviewing the issues in dispute.
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340

4
device 30) as required by claims 1 and 7. Final Act. 3. In the words of
independent claim 1, Stevens’s signal fails to include “a request to lower a
level of the power signal if any one of voltage and current measured in the
receiving apparatus due to the received power is greater than an upper limit
of a predetermined range, and a request to raise a level of the power signal if
anyone of voltage and current measured in the receiving apparatus due to the
received power is less than a lower limit of the predetermined range” . . .
“wherein the central control unit is to increase or decrease the level of the
power signal in response to the request to maintain a stable power level at
the power receiving apparatus during battery charging.” Appeal Br. 16
(Claims Appendix).
The Examiner relies on Baarman as disclosing the request to lower the
power signal level and on Belyanin as disclosing a request to raise it. Final
Act. 3–4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s prior art combination
fails to suggest what is claimed. Specifically, Belyanin fails to disclose the
required request to raise a level of the power signal if voltage/current
measured in the receiving apparatus due to the received power is less than a
lower limit of the predetermined range. Appeal Br. 10–13; Reply Br. 4–5.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 23 and 24 to support the finding, but as
we explain below the Examiner’s reasoning as to those paragraphs does not
support the finding.
As shown in Figure 1, Belyanin’s wireless charging system includes a
controller 3 on supply side 1 that “controls high-frequency generator 2 by
applying power on/off command signals and commands for setting a definite
power level.” Belyanin ¶ 20 (emphasis omitted). It is true that controller 3
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340

5
receives commands from charging device 8, i.e., Belyanin’s power receiving
apparatus. Belyanin ¶ 23. Belyanin uses those received commands to form
“on/off switching and control commands” that “energize and deenergize the
power supply circuit and maintain the required power level of high
frequency generator 2 (for optimizing the intensity of energy radiation), as
well as commands for regulation of the operating condition of charge-
discharge controller 13.” Id. (emphasis omitted). As argued by Appellant,
Belyanin does not explain what “optimizing the intensity of energy
radiation” describes. Appeal Br. 10.
Belyanin’s power receiving apparatus (charging device 8) includes
storage cells in storage battery 15 and supercapacitor unit 16. Belyanin ¶ 14.
Belyanin explains that “[a]s supply voltage decreases (due to discharge of
storage cells and supercapacitors), charge-discharge controller 13 forms a
discharge signal and transmits it to controller 3.” Belyanin ¶ 24 (emphasis
omitted). This signal is a signal from the power receiving apparatus to a
control unit. But the Examiner has not established that this signal contains a
request to raise the level of the power signal if anyone of voltage and current
measured in the receiving apparatus due to the received power is less than a
lower limit of the predetermined range. Belyanin uses the signal to
command high-frequency generator 2 to increase the carrier power
(amplitude) and recharge the storage cells 15 and supercapacitors 16.
Belyanin ¶ 24. This disclosure suggests that Belyanin is simply switching
the power level on and off rather than lowering or raising the level of the
power signal below or above a predetermined range as required by claims 1
and 7.
Appeal 2020-005856
Application 13/970,340

6
Nor does the disclosure suggest that there is a request from the power
receiving apparatus to raise the power signal level based on a voltage/current
“measured in the receiving apparatus due to the received power.” Appeal Br.
16 (Claims Appendix). We interpret “received power” as referring to power
received by the power receiving apparatus, which in Belyanin is charging
device 8. Belyanin Fig. 1. As pointed out by Appellant, Belyanin’s signal is
generated based on a detection of the supply voltage provided by the storage
cells and supercapacitors, not based on a voltage or current measured in the
receiving apparatus (charging device 8) due to the received power (power
received by charging device 8). Reply Br. 4–5.
The defect permeates the rejection of each claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, and 9–12 is
REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 10–
12
103(a) Stevens, Baarman,
Belyanin
1, 4–7, 10–
12
3, 9 103(a) Stevens, Baarman,
Belyanin, Kato
3, 9
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9–12

REVERSED