SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2020

14499438 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2020)

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.
14/499,438 09/29/2014 THOMAS KOMMA 2013P19772 9371
27350 7590 06/18/2020
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
RANKINE, TARIKH KANEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2020 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS KOMMA and MONIKA POEBL

Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–9.2 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—namely, “SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT”
(Application Data Sheet filed September 29, 2014 at 4), which is also
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed October 22, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”) at 1).
2 See Appeal Br. 5–14; Final Office Action entered April 27, 2018 (“Final
Act.”) at 3–11; Examiner’s Answer entered February 8, 2019 (“Ans.”) at 3–
5.
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

2
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a “charging configuration”3 for
wireless charging of an electrically-operated vehicle (Specification filed
September 29, 2014 (“Spec.”) ¶ 2). Figures 1 and 2 (annotations added),
which are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, are reproduced from the
Drawings filed September 29, 2014, as follows:

3 Although “configuration” is normally understood as a “relative
arrangement of parts or elements” (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/configuration; emphasis added), it appears that the
term, in its present context, has been construed to be specifying a device or
apparatus that comprises the elements recited in claim 1 below.
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

3
Figures 1 and 2 above depict a top view and a side view, respectively, of a
charging device 10 installed in a recess formed in a floor 11 and
“configured” for inductive emission of energy to charge a vehicle (not
shown), wherein the charging device 10 includes, inter alia, a wound first
coil 12 with a central opening 14, a wound second coil 13 with a central
opening 15, a U-shaped ferrite core 16 with leg portions 162 that extend into
central openings 14 and 15, a shielding sheet 23, and coil carriers (holders)
21 (id. ¶¶ 20–30).
Representative claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A charging configuration for inductive wireless transfer of
energy to a receiving coil of an electrically operated vehicle, the
charging configuration comprising:
a first circularly wound electrically conductive coil
extending in a given plane and having a first central opening
formed in a center of said first coil;
a second circularly wound electrically conductive coil
extending in a given plane and having a second central opening
formed in a center of said second coil;
said first and second coil having a bottom edge and being
disposed in a coplanar relationship;
a ferrite core being U-shaped and having a first leg
extending into said first central opening of said first coil and a
second leg extending into said second central opening of said
second coil, said second leg disposed opposite said first leg;
a shielding sheet with a rectangular base plate supporting
said ferrite core and said coplanar coils thereon; and
a coil holder configured to hold said first and second coils
on said shielding sheet to maintain a distance of between 15 and
25 mm between said shielding sheet and said bottom edge of said
coils.
(Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

4
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
follows:
A. Claims 1–8 as unpatentable over Farkas4 in view of Kobayashi
et al.5 (“Kobayashi”) and Morita et al.6 (“Morita”); and
B. Claim 9 as unpatentable over Farkas in view of Kobayashi and
Morita, and further in view of Partovi.7
(Final Act. 3–11; Ans. 3–5).
III. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Farkas describes a “charging configuration”
comprising a first circularly wound electrically conductive coil extending in
a given plane and having a first central opening formed in a center of the
first coil, a second circularly wound electrically conductive coil extending in
a given plane and having a second central opening formed in a center of the
second coil, and a ferrite core (Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner acknowledges
that, in contrast to claim 1, Farkas does not disclose: (1) a U-shaped ferrite
core having a first leg extending into the first central opening of the first coil
and a second leg extending the second central opening of the second coil; (2)
a shielding sheet with a rectangular base plate supporting the ferrite core and
the coplanar coils; and (3) a coil holder configured to hold the first and
second coils on the shielding sheet to maintain a distance (id. at 4). To

4 US 2008/0265684 A1, published October 30, 2008.
5 US 2002/0171525 A1, published November 21, 2002.
6 US 2008/0129246 A1, published June 5, 2008.
7 US 2014/0191568 A1, published July 10, 2014.
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

5
resolve these differences, the Examiner relies mainly on Kobayashi, which,
in the Examiner’s view, teaches claim 1’s limitations that are lacking in
Farkas (id. at 4–5). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
“[i]t would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to
modify [the] ferrite core and the first and second coils taught by Farkas to
have [a] U-shaped core, a shielding sheet and [a] coil holder taught by
Kobayashi for the purpose of easy transmission of high voltages” (id. at 6
(citing Farkas ¶ 16)). The Examiner relies on Morita for its teaching
regarding a rectangular base plate (id. at 6). The Examiner also concludes
that the distance range between the shielding sheet and the bottom edge of
the coils (between 15 and 25 mm) would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice because it would
have involved a mere change in size (id. at 7).
The Appellant contends, inter alia, that a person having ordinary skill
in the art would not have been motivated to modify the charging apparatus
disclosed in Farkas based on Kobayashi’s disclosure because Kobayashi
relates to an electromagnetic forming apparatus operating at relatively high
voltages and high current voltage pulses at a high frequency to press a
material such as aluminum into a required shape (Appeal Br. 7–10).
According to the Appellant, the prior art references would not have
suggested that Kobayashi’s high voltage, high current system would be
useful or desired in a charging apparatus as disclosed in Farkas, and, in fact,
such parameters as disclosed in Kobayashi may likely be damaging when
implemented in the charging of a battery (id. at 9–12). The Appellant also
argues that even if it would have been obvious to modify the charging
apparatus disclosed in Farkas based on Kobayashi’s teachings, the first and
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

6
second coils of the resulting combination would be circularly wound around
the circular circumferences of the opposite legs of the U-shaped core, and,
therefore, neither coil would be “extending in a given plane” as required by
claim 1 (id. at 6).
We agree with the Appellant because the Examiner’s rejection fails to
articulate a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Farkas and Kobayashi in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Farkas describes a roadside array energy transmission system 105 for
wirelessly charging a vehicle’s onboard energy storage device unit 115 in
Figures 1–3, of which Figures 3(a) and 3(b) (some annotations added) are
reproduced, as follows:

Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

7
Figures 3(a) and 3(b) above depict a perspective view and a cross-sectional
view of a roadside array and a receiver array, wherein the roadside array
includes an energy transmission system 105 comprising, inter alia,
conductive coil windings 201 and 202 and ferrite cores (not labeled) situated
in the middle (Farkas ¶¶ 13, 33–35).
By contrast, Kobayashi teaches a continuous pressing equipment with
which material such as aluminum may be processed into a prescribed
complicated shape using a small number of press machines, wherein the
continuous pressing equipment is a tandem press or a transfer press with a
plurality of press machines, using an electromagnetic forming apparatus
provided within at least one press machine or between pressing machines
(Kobayashi ¶¶ 7–8, 10). Specifically, Kobayashi’s Figure 6A (annotations
added) is reproduced as follows:

Kobayashi’s Figure 6A above shows a sectional arrangement of an
electromagnetic connector 10 (not labeled) shielded in two separate casings
Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

8
18a and 18b provided with, inter alia, a primary core 16a, a secondary core
16b, and primary windings 12 and secondary windings 14 molded into
supporting bodies 19a and 19b, respectively (id. ¶¶ 51, 53–54). Kobayashi’s
system configuration provides “an intense magnetic field . . . required to
produce sufficient processing force” to effect magnetic forming of a metal
workpiece (id. ¶¶ 39, 56).
Thus, although Kobayashi does show vertically disposed, U-shaped
cores 16a and 16b that extend into the axial openings of windings 12 and 14
(Kobayashi Figure 3), it does so for a reason unrelated to wireless charging
of a vehicle battery as disclosed in Farkas—i.e., to shape a metal workpiece
to a predefined complicated shape using relatively high voltage and high
current. The Examiner does not direct us to sufficient evidence that the
limitations missing in Farkas (e.g., a U-shape ferrite core) would provide
any advantage or effect in a wireless charging system as disclosed in Farkas.
Therefore, the Examiner’s contrary conclusion that the limitations missing in
Farkas would provide “easy transmission of high voltages” (Final Act. 6) or
“a stronger magnetic field for wireless power transmission” (Ans. 4–5) is not
supported by sufficient evidence or technical reasoning. Indeed, as the
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 9–10), the Examiner does not explain how the
features shown in Kobayashi can be implemented in Farkas without
potentially damaging the vehicle’s energy storage device or other parts of
the vehicle itself. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“‘[C]onclusory statements’ alone are insufficient and, instead, the
finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’” (internal citation
omitted)).

Appeal 2019-004121
Application 14/499,438

9
The remaining references have not been cited to cure the deficiencies
in the Examiner’s basic combination of Farkas and Kobayashi.
Accordingly, we cannot uphold the Examiner’s stated rejections.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8 103 Farkas, Kobayashi,
Morita
1–8
9 103 Farkas, Kobayashi,
Morita, Partovi
9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

REVERSED