Marc Sousa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2019

14263689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2019)

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.
14/263,689 04/28/2014 Marc Sousa ACT-052 2624
47713 7590 07/16/2019
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX 607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
ALMO, KHAREEM E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARC SOUSA and MARK CIERI
____________

Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed April 28, 2014, as amended (“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated
August 9, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed January 16, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated May 23, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief
filed July 27, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

2
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20.3
We REVERSE.
The invention relates “to the operation and design of inductive
charging systems, and more particularly, to the operation and design of a
quality of charge detector for use in inductive charging systems.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Inductive charging, or “wireless charging,” uses an electromagnetic field to
transfer energy between two devices, such as a charging station and the
batteries in a mobile phone or an electric vehicle. Id. ¶ 2. During inductive
charging, a device with a secondary inductor or coil is positioned close to a
charging base station that utilizes a primary inductor or coil to create an
alternating electromagnetic field. Id. ¶ 3. The secondary inductor takes
power from the electromagnetic field based on received signal strength, and
converts it back into electrical current that can be used to charge a battery.
Id. The signal strength received by the charging device is dependent on the
position of the device relative to the primary inductor, and determines the
overall rate of energy transfer. Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
A quality of charge (QoC) metric . . . characterizes the overall
power transfer from the charging station to the charge receiving
device. A higher QoC metric indicates higher efficiency that
will result in shorter battery charge time and a lower QoC
metric indicates lower efficiency that results in longer battery
charge time.
Id. ¶ 5.

2 The Appellant is the Applicant, Active-Semi, Inc., also identified as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

3
The inventive apparatus includes a QoC detector for detecting a QoC
metric associated with an inductive power transfer between an inductive
charging device and a receiving device, and an indicator for displaying the
energy transfer to a user. Id. ¶ 9. From the information shown on the
indicator, the device user can decide whether an adjustment to the relative
positions of the inductive charging device and the receiving device is needed
to increase the QoC metric, thereby increasing the energy transfer and
shortening battery charge time. Id.
Figure 1, as annotated by the Appellant (Reply Br. 6), is reproduced
below.
Figure 1, above, “shows an inductive charging device that includes an
exemplary embodiment of a QoC detector” (Spec. ¶ 14), and is annotated to
identify the inductor, the external device, the quality detector, and the
indicator. During operation, a user places charge receiving device 116 (the
external device) on charging surface 104 of inductive charging device 102
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

4
such that Rx coil 118 of the external device and Tx coil 106 (the inductor) of
charging device 102 align. Id. ¶ 30. Tx controller 108 energizes Tx coil 106
to generate an electromagnetic field that inductively couples to Rx coil 118.
Id. The relative positions of Tx coil 106 and Rx coil 118 determine the
signal strength experienced by Rx coil 118. Id. Rx controller 120 uses the
energy received by Rx coil 118 to charge local batteries or simply to operate
charge receiving device 116. Id. Rx controller 120 also sends messages back
to Tx controller 108 indicating received signal strength or other values
associated with the energy transfer. Id. Tx controller 108 passes the
information in the messages, along with other parameters, to QoC detector
112 (the quality detector). Id. QoC detector 112 performs an algorithm using
the received information to determine a QoC metric that describes the
energy transfer between Tx controller 108 and Rx receiver 116, and outputs
the QoC metric to indicator 114 (the indicator) that is visible to the user. Id.
¶ 31. The information shown in indicator 114 allows the user to reposition
charge receiving device 116 on charging surface 104 until the largest or
optimum QoC metric is obtained. Id. ¶ 33.
Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent. See
Appeal Br. 30–33 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 is representative of the
claims on appeal, and is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an inductor that receives a current signal to generate an
electromagnetic field during a power transfer to an external
device;
a quality detector to determine a quality metric associated
with the power transfer; and
an indicator that indicates multiple states, wherein one of
the multiple states indicates the quality metric.
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

5
Id. at 30.
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
follows:
1. claim 1 as anticipated by Moritsuka (US 2014/0339905 A1,
published November 20, 2014);
2. claim 1 as anticipated by Nakano (US 2015/0171633 A1,
published June 18, 2015); and
3. claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20 as anticipated by Partovi
(US 2009/0096413 A1, published April 16, 2009).
The respective positions of the Examiner and the Appellant raises the
following issue as to each ground of rejection: Has the Appellant identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s findings that the applied prior art discloses
“a quality metric associated with the power transfer” to an external device
(claims 1, 13, 20)? For the reasons discussed below, we answer this question
in the affirmative as to each ground of rejection. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20.
Rejection over Moritsuka
Moritsuka discloses “a foreign object detection device and a non-
contact power transfer device.” Moritsuka ¶ 2. The Examiner found the
embodiment described in connection with Moritsuka Figure 13, reproduced
below, anticipates claim 1. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

6

Figure 13 is a block diagram of power transmitter 3 that is embedded,
e.g., in the ground, a car that includes power receiver 5, and foreign object
detector 6 arranged between power transmitter 3 and power receiver 5.
Moritsuka ¶¶ 32, 55–56. Power transmitter 3 includes alternating-current
power source 31 and power transmitter’s transfer unit 34 (an inductor (Final
Act. 3)). Moritsuka ¶ 56. Power receiver 5 (an external device (Final Act. 3))
includes power receiver’s transfer unit 24. Moritsuka ¶ 55. During operation,
power transmitter’s transfer unit 34 transfers power to power receiver’s
transfer unit 24, installed on the bottom face of the car or near taillights or
headlights of the car. Id. ¶¶ 57–58. “The power received by the power
receiver’s transfer unit 24 is converted into direct current by the rectifier
circuit 25, and its voltage is controlled by the control circuit 26, and finally
charged in the secondary battery 21.” Id. ¶ 57. If, during power transfer, a
foreign object that hinders power receiver 5 from receiving power from
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

7
power transmitter 3 is detected by foreign object detector 6 (a quality
detector (Final Act. 3)), wireless communication unit 35 in foreign object
detection device 1 (not shown) notifies wireless communication unit 22 in
the car, and power control signal generator 7 (an indicator (id.)) “generates a
power control signal for controlling the power transmitted from the power
transmitter 3.” Moritsuka ¶¶ 32, 60.
Further, when a foreign object is detected by the foreign object
detector 6, the power controller 4 reduces the power to be
transmitted by stopping the operation of the high-frequency
inverter circuit 33 in the power transmitter 3, lowering
operating frequency of the high-frequency inverter circuit 33, or
by controlling the phase of the gate signal of the high frequency
inverter circuit 33.
Id. ¶ 60. The Examiner’s position is that foreign object detector 6 determines
a quality metric associated with the power transfer because power controller
4 stops power transfer when a foreign object is detected (Ans. 16), i.e., “the
quality metric is a control function (e.g. stopping the power transfer from the
power transmitter)” (id. at 17).
The Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is based on an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim 1 limitation “a quality metric
associated with the power transfer.” Reply Br. 5. According to the
Appellant, one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the Specification,
would understand that “the ‘quality metric associated with the power
transfer’ limitation refers to quality of power transferred to an external
device.” Id. at 6. The Appellant contends the output of Moritsuka’s “foreign
object detector 6 is binary – either an object is detected or no object[] is
detected.” Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant argues that the presence of a foreign
object may affect power transfer quality, but “[b]ecause [Moritsuka’s]
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

8
foreign object detector 6 . . . does not detect the quality of power transfer
between transmitter 34 and receiver 24,” foreign object detector 6 is not “a
quality detector that determines a quality metric associated with power
transfer to an external device” as required by claim 1. Id. at 6–7.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In construing claim terms, we
look first to the language of the claims.
The language of the independent claims does not further specify what
is meant by “a quality metric associated with the power transfer.” From the
dependent claims, it is clear that this phrase encompasses “power efficiency”
(claim 2), and a value calculated from “a ratio of the received signal power
and the ping power level” (claim 4) or “a ratio of the received signal power
and the first power level [input to the inductor to generate the
electromagnetic field]” (claim 6). Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims Appendix); see
35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“[A] claim in dependent form shall contain a reference
to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the
subject matter claimed.”).
We turn next to the written description, which discloses that
[t]he rate of energy transfer can greatly affect the length
of time necessary to charge a device’s battery. The signal
strength determined from the relative positions of the primary
and secondary inductors determines the overall rate of energy
transfer. A quality of charge (QoC) metric can be determined
that characterizes the overall power transfer from the charging
station to the charge receiving device.
Spec. ¶ 5 (emphasis added). According to the written description, “a simple
on/off indicator to indicate whether or not a device’s battery is charging . . .
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

9
provides no information to the user about the QoC. As a result, a device user
may not know anything about the rate of energy transfer to the receiving
device or the overall battery charge time.” Id. ¶ 7. The written description
states that a goal of the invention is to provide
a mechanism that quickly determines a QoC metric during
induction charging, and provides notification of the QoC metric
to a user to allow the user to reposition a charge receiving
device on the charging surface to increase the QoC metric and
thereby increase energy transfer and decrease or minimize
battery charge time.
Id. ¶ 8. The written description discloses the use of algorithms “to determine
a QoC metric that describes the energy transfer” between the controller and
receiver. Id. ¶ 31; see also id. ¶¶ 45, 68, 74.
Based on the above disclosure, as well as our review of the
Specification in its entirety, we determine the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim phrase “a quality metric associated with the power
transfer” is a measure of a quality of the power transfer, e.g., rate or
efficiency of the power transfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand this claim language does not encompass a binary state that
merely indicates the existence or absence of power transfer.
Because the Examiner has not identified a teaching in Moritsuka of a
detector for measuring quality of the power transfer, we do not sustain this
ground of rejection.
Rejection over Nakano
Nakano discloses an “apparatus for detecting the presence of
undesirable foreign matter in a region between a wireless power
transmission apparatus and a power reception apparatus.” Nakano, at [57].
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

10
The Examiner found claim 1 reads on Nakano’s Figure 5 power transmission
apparatus and Figure 7 power reception apparatus. See Final Act. 4–5.
The Appellant contends the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
Nakano’s foreign matter detector 46 meets the claim 1 limitation of “a
quality detector to determine a quality metric associated with the power
transfer.” Appeal Br. 11. More specifically, the Appellant argues that
“foreign matter detector 46 only detects the existence or nonexistence of
foreign matter and does not detect the quality of power transfer between
power transmission coil L1 and power reception coil L2.” Id. at 12. The
Appellant maintains the Examiner’s rejection is based on the same,
unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim 1 limitation “quality metric
associated with the power transfer” that was applied in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Moritsuka. Reply Br. 5.
Based on our interpretation of the claim phrase “quality metric
associated with the power transfer” as a measure of a quality of the power
transfer, we find the Appellant’s argument persuasive. Accordingly, we do
not sustain this ground of rejection.
Rejection over Partovi
Partovi discloses “[a] portable inductive power source, power device,
or unit, for use in powering or charging electrical, electronic, battery-
operated, mobile, and other devices or rechargeable batteries.” Partovi ¶ 13.
Partovi’s system includes two parts. Id. “The first part is a pad or similar
base unit that contains a primary, which creates an alternating magnetic field
by means of applying an alternating current to a winding, coil, or any type of
current carrying wire.” Id. “The second part of the system is a receiver that
comprises a means for receiving the energy from the alternating magnetic
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

11
field from the pad and transferring it to a mobile or other device or
rechargeable battery.” Id. Partovi discloses that “[t]he power transfer
efficiency between the primary coil and the receiver should be maximized”
(id. ¶ 99), and discloses various coil arrangements and materials for
enhancing power transfer efficiency (see id ¶¶ 194–226).
The Examiner found the embodiment described in connection with
Partovi Figure 28, reproduced below, anticipates claims 1–6, 10–18, and 20.
Final Act. 5–8.

Figure 28 illustrates a charger wherein the primary stage and the receiver
stage communicate wirelessly. Partovi ¶ 43. Partovi discloses that:
The Charge Management IC typically, for a fully drained
battery, will pass on the maximum input current to the battery
to enable rapid charging when the battery is at low voltage.
This presents a low impedance load to the power supply circuit
and requires the power supply to sustain the voltage at the
required value while supplying the current. The Charge
Management IC is in communication with the MCU2 which
also monitors the output voltage (Vout) and tries to maintain
Appeal 2018-008019
Application 14/263,689

12
this Vout within a pre-programmed range. This is achieved by
MCU2 sending a digital signal to Q2 to modulate the switch.
Id. ¶ 262. The Examiner found Partovi’s Charge Management IC and MCU2
function as a quality detector that determines Vout, a quality metric
associated with the power transfer. Final Act. 6.
Based on our claim interpretation, above, we are persuaded by the
Appellant’s argument that monitoring of Vout and regulation thereof within
a pre-programmed range by Partovi’s Charge Management IC and MCU2 is
not a determination of a “quality metric associated with the power transfer,”
Vout does not provide a measure of the quality of the power transfer.
Accordingly, we do not sustain this ground of rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings that each of Moritsuka, Nakano, and Partovi discloses “a quality
metric associated with the power transfer” to an external device (claims 1,
13, 20).
ORDER
Claims
Rejected
Basis Reference Affirmed Reversed
1 § 102(a)(1) Moritsuka 1
1 § 102(a)(1) Nakano 1
1–6, 10–18, and
20
§ 102(a)(1) Partovi 1–6, 10–18, and 20
Outcome 1–6, 10–18, and 20

REVERSED