NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2021000329 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 16/118,279 08/30/2018 Gernot Hueber 82072372US02 6276 65913 7590 02/02/2022 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXP B.V. 350 HOLGER WAY SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER HUANG, WEN WU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): ip.department.us@nxp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GERNOT HUEBER and IAN THOMAS MACNAMARA Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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, 4-8, 11, 14-20, and 22-24. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP B.V. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a near-field communication (NFC) device and power management method. Spec., Title. The Specification states that in “applications and devices that use NFC technology . . . power consumption is a key system performance parameter.” Spec. 3, ll. 17-18. The Specification further notes that “an NFC system should often remain functional even if it receives only a limited amount of power” and “to keep unneeded battery drain to a minimum, not needed components and sub- systems should be turned off. Spec. 3, ll. 19-21. Appellant’s claims are directed to an NFC device that includes a processor and a wake-up detector that “operate in different power domains” such that the wake-up detector is configured to wake up the processor by remaining functional when the NFC system and host processor are in a power off state. Spec. 4, ll. 4-10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A near field communication (NFC) device comprising an NFC controller, the NFC controller comprising: a processor and a receiver implemented in a first power domain, wherein the first power domain is powered by a power management unit (PMU) that comprises a first power supply; an antenna network comprising a matching network connected to an antenna, wherein the matching network comprises a receiver (Rx) signal line that is connected to an input of the receiver; and a wake-up detector implemented in a second power domain distinct from the first power domain, wherein the wake-up detector comprises a rectifier circuit having an input coupled to the Rx signal line between the antenna network and the input of the receiver, the rectifier circuit comprises a diode and a capacitor that form the rectifier circuit, wherein the Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 3 rectifier circuit is configured to generate a second power supply to power the wake-up detector in response to receipt of a radio frequency (RF) field on the antenna network, wherein the second power supply is derived from the RF field, no voltage supply line is provided from the PMU to the wake-up detector, the wake-up detector is configured to: generate an activated wake-up signal on the capacitor of the rectifier circuit in response to generation of the second power supply, and output the activated wake-up signal on a first output line of the wake-up detector, wherein the first output line is connected to the PMU in the first power domain, and the PMU is configured to change power state of the receiver from a standby state to an active state, in response to receipt of the activated wake-up signal, wherein the receiver is powered down during the standby state, and the receiver is powered on during the active state. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: Name Reference Date Zhang US 2009/0221240 A1 Sept. 3, 2009 Hasegawa US 2012/0315863 A1 Dec. 13, 2012 Roh US 2015/0178526 A1 June 25, 2015 Wobak US 2018/0034507 A1 Feb. 1, 2018 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 16-20, 23, and 243 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Roh, and Zhang. Final Act. 3. Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, and 224 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa, Roh, Zhang, and Wobak. Final Act. 9. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest “a processor and a receiver implemented in a first power domain” having “a receiver (Rx) signal line that is connected to an input of the receiver,” as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest “the processor is configured to initiate a start-up sequences to change the power state of the processor from the standby state to the active state, in response to receipt of the activated wake-up signal,” as recited in claim 7? ANALYSIS First Issue The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Hasegawa, Roh, and Zhang. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies primarily 3 In the final Office Action, the Examiner erroneously lists canceled claim 21 in this rejection. 4 Although the Examiner did not include claims 14 and 15 in this rejection, they recite limitations commensurate with those recited in claims 4 and 5. As such, we consider their omission a harmless typographical error on the part of the Examiner. We note Appellant does not argue that the Examiner has failed to address these claims. Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 5 on Hasegawa, finding that it teaches most of the recited limitations. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner finds Hasegawa deficient in that it does not teach the specific configuration of an antenna including “an antenna network comprising a matching network connected to an antenna, wherein the matching network comprises a receiver (Rx) signal line,” relying on Roh for this limitation. The Examiner further finds Hasegawa deficient with respect to the structure of the claimed “rectifier circuit comprises a diode and a capacitor that form the rectifier circuit, and wherein the activated wake-up signal generated on the capacitor of the rectifier circuit,” relying on Zhang to supply this teaching. Id. Relevant to the specific issue raised by Appellant, the Examiner finds Hasegawa’s control unit (14) and power supply switch unit (15), depicted in Figure 2, collectively form the recited “processor,” and the wireless communication unit (17) teaches the claimed “receiver.” Final Act. 3 (citing Hasegawa Fig. 2); Ans. 3 (citing Hasegawa Figs. 2, 11). The Examiner explains that the wireless control unit is a receiver “because it receives sensor data from sensor 11 via holding unit 12 and is implemented in the power domain of power supply 15 and switch 16.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Appellant contends the Examiner has erred because “the combination of cited references fails to provide disclosure of a receiver in the first power domain.” Appeal Br. 13. More specifically, Appellant argues “the cited sections of the reference only disclose Hasegawa’s wireless communication unit . . . as a transmitter or performing transmission functions.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Hasegawa ¶¶ 37, 43); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant further asserts that “the sections of Hasegawa cited in the Final Office Action Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 6 disclose the only signal received by Hasegawa’s wireless sensing terminal 10 is a ‘data request signal’ provided by an electromagnetic wave from Hasegawa’s data collecting terminal 20 that is ‘received from the data collecting terminal 20 through the antenna 18.’” Appeal Br. 14. We disagree. Resolution of this issue turns on the meaning of “receiver.” Neither the Examiner nor Appellant provides a proposed definition for the term. However, their respective positions provide an implicit definition in each case. The Examiner determines that Hasegawa’s wireless communication unit (17) is a receiver because it receives sensor data. Thus, implicit the Examiner’s application of the prior art is an interpretation by which a receiver is something that receives. Appellant, in contrast, argues that a receiver must receive something specific-an electrical signal passed from an antenna. Reply Br. 3 (“Hasegawa does not disclose that any signal from the antenna reaches the wireless communication unit.”). “[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We note that the Specification does not provide an explicit, lexicographic definition for the term “receiver.” Nor does the Specification indicate that a receiver must receive a signal from an antenna. As such, we accord the term its ordinary and customary meaning. Dictionary definitions for receiver include (1) a person or thing that receives; and (2) a device or apparatus for receiving or holding something. Hasegawa’s wireless communication unit (17) falls within each of these definitions because it receives sensor data. Although embodiments described in Appellant’s Specification describe a receiver that receives an electrical signal from an antenna, these are Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 7 examples, and not definitions. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Hasegawa’s wireless communication unit corresponds to the recited “receiver” of claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under § 103. Second Issue Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 7, which recites the limitation “the processor is configured to initiate a start-up sequence to change power state of the processor from the standby state to the active state, in response to receipt of the activated wake-up signal.” Appeal Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant contends that the “the combination of cited references fails to provide disclosure of a processor changing a power state from a standby state to an active state.” Appeal Br. 15-16. We are not persuaded of error. Hasegawa teaches that “when the activation signal is generated, the activation signal output unit 13 outputs the activation signal to the control unit 14.” Hasegawa ¶ 36. Hasegawa further teaches “when the activation signal is input from the activation signal output unit 13, the control unit 14 controls the power supply switch unit 16 such that electric power is supplied from the power supply unit 15.” Hasegawa ¶ 37. The Examiner finds that the control unit 14 and power supply unit collectively correspond to the recited processor. Ans. 3. Thus, Hasegawa teaches that the activation signal causes the power supply unit to go from a state of not supplying power to a state of supplying power. We agree with the Examiner that this operations teaches changing the power state from a standby state to an active state. As such, we are not persuaded of error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 7. Appeal 2021-000329 Application 16/118,279 8 Remaining Claims Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6-8, 11, 16-20, 23, 24 103 Hasegawa, Roh, Zhang 1, 6-8, 11, 16-20, 23, 24 4, 5, 14, 15, 22 103 Hasegawa, Roh, Zhang, Wobak 4, 5, 14, 15, 22 Overall Outcome 1, 4-8, 11, 14-20, 22- 24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED