NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2019005481 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
15/420,621 01/31/2017 Anthony Kerselaers 82013936US01 1572
65913 7590 01/04/2021
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
CHEN, ZHITONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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):
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 LIESBETH GOMM

Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621
Technology Center 2600

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–18 are pending, stand rejected, and are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 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). The real party in interest is NXP B.V. See Bibliographic Data
Sheet. Appellant fails to identify the real party in interest in the Appeal
Brief.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Jan. 31, 2017;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 22, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed July 10, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 14, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
June 17, 2019.
Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally “relates
to systems, methods, apparatuses, devices, articles of manufacture and
instructions regarding an architecture for an NFEMI [(near-field
electromagnetic induction)] device.” Spec. ¶ 1. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–18;
Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a device) and 17 (directed to a device) are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A near-field electromagnetic induction (NFEMI) device,
comprising:
an NFEMI antenna, having a first conductive plate, a coil,
a first signal feed connection, and a second signal feed
connection, wherein the coil is configured to generate or respond
to a magnetic field and is coupled to the first and second signal
feed connections, and the first conductive plate is coupled to the
first signal feed connection; and
an electrical apparatus, having a ground plane, a first
capacitor and a second capacitor, wherein the electrical
apparatus is coupled to the first and second signal feed
connections, the first capacitor is coupled between the first
signal feed connection and a ground node coupled to the ground
plane, the second capacitor is coupled between the second signal
feed connection and a ground node coupled to the ground plane,
and the first conductive plate in combination with the ground
plane is configured to generate or respond to an electrical field.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kerselaers
(“Kerselaers ’801”)
US 2011/0300801 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621

3
Kerselaers et al.
(“Kerselaers ’932”)
US 2015/0318932 A1 Nov. 5, 2015
Jensen et al.
(“Jensen”)
US 2016/0315667 A1 Oct. 27, 2016
Post et al. (“Post”) US 6,211,799 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 10–13, and 15–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen. See
Final Act. 4–7.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3–7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kerselaers ’801, Jensen, and Post. See Final Act.
7–10.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kerselaers ’801, Jensen, and Kerselaers ’932. See
Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 17, and dependent claims 2, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18) as being obvious
over Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 2–3. Appellant
contends that Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen do not teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 1–2. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that: (1) claim 1 requires a ground node

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to the amended version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621

4
connected to a ground plane with a first capacitor coupled to the ground
node and a second capacitor coupled to the ground node; (2) “Jensen lacks a
ground node coupled to a ground plane” and “lacks any suggestion of using
a ground plane as part of the antenna;” and (3) Kerselaers ’801 “depicts CS
coupled directly to ground,” “[i]t is not coupled to any capacitors and,
therefore, Kerselaers ’801 “lacks a ground node.” Appeal Br. 6; see Reply
Br. 1–2.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen do not teach or suggest a “an electrical
apparatus” “coupled to the first and second signal feed connections” with a
“first capacitor . . . coupled between the first signal feed connection and a
ground node coupled to the ground plane” and a “second capacitor . . .
coupled between the second signal feed connection and a ground node
coupled to the ground plane” with a “first conductive plate in combination
with the ground plane . . . configured to generate or respond to an electrical
field” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). See Appeal Br.
5–6; Reply Br. 1–2. We construe claim 1 to require at least two distinct
grounds—a ground node and a ground plane. See Spec. ¶¶ 41, 50, 58, 62,
69; Figs 2C, 2D, 3, 4. Appellant explicitly defines a ground plane to be a
structure connected to ground—a “ground connected structure.” Spec. ¶ 50.
Appellant’s Specification and claims distinguish a ground node from a
ground plane. Appellant’s claim 1 requires a ground plane and at least one
(distinct) ground node. As pointed out by Appellant, Jensen does not
describe a ground plane and “lacks a ground node coupled to a ground
plane.” Appeal Br. 6; see Reply Br. 2. As further pointed out by Appellant,
Kerselaers ’801 describes a conducting structure connected directly to
Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621

5
ground without any intervening connections to other devices and, therefore,
“lacks a ground node.” Appeal Br. 6; see Reply Br. 2. In any event, claim 1
(and independent claim 17) require at least two distinct grounds. Kerselaers
’801 and Jensen each individually teach only a single ground.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the combination of
Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen would have taught or suggested both a ground
node and a ground plane connected with the capacitors and NFEMI antenna
as specified in claim 1. Consequently, we are constrained by the record
before us to conclude that the Examiner erred in determining that the
combination of Kerselaers ’801 and Jensen renders obvious Appellant’s
claim 1. Independent claim 17 includes limitations of commensurate scope.
Claims 2, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18 depend from and stand with claim 1.
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3–7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kerselaers ’801, Jensen, and Post. See
Final Act. 7–10. The Examiner also rejects dependent claims 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kerselaers ’801, Jensen, and
Kerselaers ’932. See Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner does not suggest, and
we do not find, that the additional cited references (Post and Kerselaers
’932) cure the deficiencies of Kerselaers ’801 in combination with Jensen
(supra). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 3–9 and 14 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1
(supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–18.
Appeal 2019-005481
Application 15/420,621

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10–13,
15–18
103 Kerselaers ’801,
Jensen
1, 2, 10–13,
15–18
3–7, 14 103 Kerselaers ’801,
Jensen, Post
3–7, 14
8, 9 103 Kerselaers ’801,
Jensen, Kerselaers
’932
8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–18

REVERSED