THOMSON LICENSINGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 20212019005388 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation