NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2020

15602160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
15/602,160 05/23/2017 Anthony Kerselaers 82020458US01 3332
65913 7590 11/16/2020
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
YANG, JIANXUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2020 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):
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 ANTHONY KERSELAERS and PIETER VERSCHUEREN
____________

Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 11–17, 19, and 20.2 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(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
NXP B.V. Appeal Br. 16.
2 Claims 4–10 and 18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “systems, methods, apparatuses,
devices, articles of manufacture and instructions for near-field signal
analysis.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A near-field device, comprising:
a near-field receiver coupled to a near-field receiver
antenna and a decoder circuit; wherein the near-field receiver
antenna is configured to be capacitively coupled at a first
location on a conductive structure and receive a non-
propagating quasi-static magnetic near-field signal and a non-
propagating quasi-static electric near-field signal from the
conductive structure through the receiver’s capacitive coupling,
wherein the decoder circuit includes a degradation detector that
is configured to interpret variations in the magnetic and electric
near-field signals as a structural degradation in the conductive
structure.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–3, 11, 13–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2008/0319285 Al; pub.
Dec. 25, 2008), Simons (US 2006/0235633 Al; pub. Oct. 19, 2006), and
Chapman (US 2002/0155625 Al; pub. Oct. 24, 2002). Final Act. 5–15.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hancock, Simons, Chapman, and Nassiri (RF Cavities
Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160

3
and Components for Accelerators, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
USPAS 2010). Final Act. 16–17.3

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Hancock discloses the recited
near-field device including “a near-field receiver coupled to a near-field
receiver antenna and a decoder circuit” and Simons discloses “wherein the
near-field receiver antenna is configured to be capacitively coupled at a first
location on a conductive structure.” Final Act. 5–7 (citing Hancock Fig. 1;
¶¶ 45, 46, 49 (create a resonant microwave cavity within the tissue structures
between the two antennas)). The Examiner relies on Chapman as disclosing
“wherein the decoder circuit is configured to detect variations in the
magnetic and electric near-field signals.” Final Act. 7–8 (citing Chapman
Fig. 1; ¶¶ 7, 16, 43, 73).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in characterizing Chapman’s
“detection of molecular events using temperature control of the detection
environment” as the claimed degradation detector because “[c]laim 1, as
amended, recites: ‘includes a degradation detector that is configured to
interpret variations in the magnetic and electric near-field signals as a
structural degradation in the conductive structure” whereas “Chapman is
directed to detection of molecular events using temperature control of the

3 In the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 12 over Hancock, Simons, Chapman, and Zdeblick, and
the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1
and 16 over claims 1 and 19 of copending Application 15/642,168 in view of
Hancock, Simons, and Chapman. Ans. 23.
Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160

4
detection environment.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant asserts
“[a] person having ordinary skill in the art would not regard a high blood
glucose level as a ‘structural degradation in the conductive structure,” and
therefore, Chapman lacks any disclosure of the disputed limitation related to
“a degradation detector that is configured to interpret variations in the
magnetic and electric near-field signals as a structural degradation in the
conductive structure,” as recited in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner responds by explaining that:
A “degradation detector” is a loose term. Any detector that
detects variations of a material structure, directly or indirectly,
may be considered as a degradation detector of the material
structure. Hancock teaches a material characterization system
that measures changes of material properties/structures such as
dielectric constant (Fig. 1, [0091–97]). Such detected changes in
material’s dielectric constant represent the change of the material
structure under test (blood) and may indicate high blood-glucose
level that implies a degraded blood structure. So the detector is
indeed a blood (structure) degradation detector. Blood is a
conductive material for an electromagnetic field. Similarly,
Chapman et al teaches a similar RF test system for study of
molecular structures (Fig. 1, [0007]; “Molecular structure is
typically detected by comparing the signal obtained tram a
molecule of unknown structure and/or function to the signal
obtained from a molecule of known structure and/or function”,
[0043]). The detector of Chapman et al can be considered as a
degradation detector since it detects the structural deviation of a
material from a known structure.
Ans. 18.
Chapman relates to “obtaining an electromagnetic signature of the
molecule in the detection range using the now-enabled new techniques, to
classify unknown molecules as having structure relationship.” Chapman ¶ 7.
Chapman discloses a method for detecting molecular interactions by
Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160

5
“detecting a molecular event, comprising (1) applying an electromagnetic
test signal in a frequency range from 1 MHz to 1000 GHz to a sample in
which a molecular event is being detected.” Chapman ¶ 16.
We agree with Appellant that claim 1’s recited “conductive structure”
and “interpret[ting] variations in the magnetic and electric near-field signals
as a structural degradation in the conductive structure” should not be
construed so broadly that it encompasses, for example, the detection of high-
blood glucose within blood, as described by Chapman. Appeal Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2.
In that regard, we find Chapman’s disclosure relates to “obtaining an
electromagnetic signature of the molecule in the detection range using the
now-enabled new techniques, to classify unknown molecules.” Chapman
¶ 7. To identify the unknown structure, Chapman detects the molecular
structure of a sample “by comparing the signal obtained from a molecule of
unknown structure and/or function to the signal obtained from a molecule of
known structure.” Chapman ¶ 43. Additionally, Chapman’s cited portion,
in paragraph 73, describes a signal generating circuit that “launches a signal
that couples to the sample in the detection region,” which refers to the
sample of the molecule of unknown structure that is being identified.
Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of a “high
blood-glucose level that implies a degraded blood structure” (see Ans. 18) as
the disputed claim limitation because Chapman’s detection is based on
comparing a measured signal to a signal associated with a known molecular
structure, rather than interpreting “variations in the magnetic and electric
near-field signals as a structural degradation in the conductive structure,”
as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003045
Application 15/602,160

6
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation of
claim 1. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejections of claim 1, independent
claim 16 which recites similar limitations, as well as the remaining claims
dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 17–21 (Claims App.).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11,
13–17, 19
103 Hancock, Simons,
Chapman
1–3, 11, 13–
17, 19
20 103 Hancock, Simons,
Chapman, Nassiri
20
Overall Outcome 1–3, 11, 13–
17, 19, 20

REVERSED