THOMSON LICENSING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2019005388 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/066,901 10/30/2013 Jean-Pierre BERTIN 2012P00010 US 7513
119110 7590 04/01/2021
Invention Mine IDC
216 S. Jefferson
Suite 102
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TANH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2187
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
bob@inventionmine.com
docket@inventionmine.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEAN-PIERRE BERTIN,
MARC LOUCHKOFF, and ANTHONY PESIN
____________

Appeal 2019-005388
Application 14/066,901
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–35.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3 (This Decision cites the page
numbers of Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2020.
Appellant indicates that the only change in the Supplemental Appeal Brief is
the identified real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.).
2 Claims 1–15 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-005388
Application 14/066,901

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to supplying power to interfaces of an
electronic device. Spec. 1:5–6.
Claims 16 and 27 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
16. A method for electric power management of a plurality of
peripheral interfaces for connecting a plurality of peripheral
devices to an electronic device, the method being implemented
by said electronic device, said electronic device comprising said
plurality of peripheral interfaces, said method comprising:
detecting that a sum of electric currents delivered to the
plurality of peripheral interfaces exceeds a limit;
selecting at least one peripheral interface of said plurality
of peripheral interfaces upon detecting that the sum of electric
currents delivered to the plurality of peripheral interfaces
exceeds the limit;
determining a non-zero maximum value of electric current
for limiting electric current delivered to the selected at least one
peripheral interface, wherein the non-zero maximum value
equals the limit minus the sum of electric currents delivered to
peripheral interfaces of said plurality of peripheral interfaces
that have not been selected; and
limiting electric current delivered to the selected at least
one peripheral interface to the non-zero maximum value.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005388
Application 14/066,901

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, 22–28, and 31–35 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao,3 Ferentz,4 and Brey.5
Final Act. 3–9.
The Examiner rejects claims 18, 19, and 29 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao, Ferentz, Brey, and Skov.6 Final
Act. 3, 6–7, 9.
The Examiner rejects claims 20, 21, and 30 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao, Ferentz, Brey, and Bainbridge.7
Final Act. 3, 7, 9.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Brey as disclosing
determining a non-zero maximum value of electric current
for limiting electric current delivered to the selected at least one
peripheral interface, wherein the non-zero maximum value
equals the limit minus the sum of electric currents delivered to
peripheral interfaces of said plurality of peripheral interfaces that
have not been selected
as recited in independent claim 16 and similarly recited in independent
claim 27. Final Act. 5 (citing Brey ¶¶ 38–40, Fig. 4). Specifically, the
Examiner relies on Brey’s disclosure of decreasing the device power

3 Liao et al., US 2011/0018344 A1 (pub. Jan. 27, 2011).
4 Ferentz et al., US 7,337,336 B2 (iss. Feb. 26, 2008).
5 Brey et al., US 2009/0125737 A1 (pub. May 14, 2009).
6 Skov et al., US 2010/0157498 A1 (pub. June 24, 2010).
7 Bainbridge et al., US 7,429,806 B2 (iss. Sept. 30, 2008).
Appeal 2019-005388
Application 14/066,901

4
limit (PLI) of a selected low-utilization device (LUD) by “the difference
between the sum of the individual power limits and the group power limit.”
Brey ¶ 39; see Final Act. 5 (citing Brey Fig. 4, steps 124,8 124B).
Considering the relationship between current and power (see Final
Act. 4–5), the Examiner finds that Brey’s disclosure of decreasing the
selected LUD’s device power limit (PLI) by “the difference between the sum
of the individual power limits and the group power limit,” i.e., ΣPLI – PLG
(see Brey Fig. 4, step 124B), is mathematically equivalent to limiting
electric current to a “non-zero maximum value equal[ing] the limit minus the
sum of electric currents delivered to peripheral interfaces of said plurality of
peripheral interfaces that have not been selected” as claimed. Ans. 14–16.
Appellant argues that Brey’s disclosure of decreasing the selected
LUD’s device power limit (PLI) by ΣPLI – PLG does not teach or suggest
limiting electric current to a “non-zero maximum value equal[ing] the limit
minus the sum of electric currents delivered to peripheral interfaces of said
plurality of peripheral interfaces that have not been selected” as claimed.
Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant further argues that “Brey teaches limits (device
power limit, PLI, and group power limit, PLG) having values based on
theoretical power consumption,” whereas the claims recite limiting electrical
current delivered based on a sum of electric currents delivered. Id. at 8.
We agree with Appellant. Brey’s calculation for limiting power is
based on a sum of individual power limits (ΣPLI), whereas the claimed
calculation for limiting electric current is based on a “sum of electric

8 As the Examiner and Appellant point out, step 124 should read
“DECREASE PLI OF A SELECTED LUD BY SMALLEST OF:” (emphasis
added). See Brey ¶ 39; Final Act. 5; Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-005388
Application 14/066,901

5
currents delivered” (emphasis added). While we appreciate and understand
the Examiner’s reasoning (see Ans. 14–16), we are unpersuaded that the sum
of individual power limits (ΣPLI) used in Brey’s calculation is analogous to
the claimed “sum of electric currents delivered.” The Examiner does not
explain how, even in combination with Liao and Ferentz, a power or current
limit (i.e., a threshold or cap (see Brey ¶ 6)) would be the same as power or
current actually delivered.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of
claims 16–35.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 16–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 17, 22–28,
31–35
103 Liao, Ferentz,
Brey
16, 17, 22–28,
31–35
18, 19, 29 103 Liao, Ferentz,
Brey, Skov
18, 19, 29
20, 21, 30 103 Liao, Ferentz,
Brey, Bainbridge
20, 21, 30
Overall
Outcome
16–35