Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020005761 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
14/503,366 09/30/2014 Jeffrey M. Alves P21501US2 5391
62579 7590 09/27/2021
APPLE INC./BROWNSTEIN
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
TRISCHLER, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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):
patentdocket@bhfs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JEFFREY M. ALVES, JEFFREY J. TERLIZZI,
TODD K. MOYER, STEVEN G. HERBST, DAVID W. RITTER,
CHAD BOSSETTI and TERRY TIKALSKY
__________

Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 50–56, 58–60, 62, 65–68, and 70. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Brief dated April 3, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”), at 3.

Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366

2

Representative claim 50 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief. The limitation at issue is italicized.2
50. An adaptive power control system for an electromagnetic
induction power transfer apparatus comprising:
a signal receiver comprising an optical sensor;
a power supply coupled to the signal receiver and having an
active state and an inactive state, the power supply configured to
switch between the active state and the inactive state at a selectable
duty cycle; and
a power-transmitting inductor coupled to the power supply;
wherein:
the power supply is configured to wake from the inactive state
in response to a first signal received by the optical sensor of the signal
receiver; and
the selectable duty cycle of the power supply is modified in
response to a second signal received by the optical sensor of the signal
receiver.
Appeal Br., Claims Appendix i.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 50, 51, 53–55, 58–60, 65–68, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Azancot3 in view of Partovi;4 and

2 Similarly, independent claim 59 recites “a power supply with an active state and
an inactive state, configured to: switch between the active state and the inactive
state.” Appeal Br., Claims Appendix ii. Claim 70, the other independent claim on
appeal, does not expressly recite that the power supply has an active state and an
inactive state as recited in claims 50 and 59. Nonetheless, claim 70 recites that
“the power supply is configured to wake in response to a wake signal,” implying
that the power supply wakes from an inactive state to an active state in response to
the wake signal. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix iii.
3 US 2010/0219698 A1, to Azancot et al., published September 2, 2010
(“Azancot”).
4 US 2012/0146576 A1, to Partovi, published June 14, 2012 (“Partovi”).
Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366

3

(2) claims 52, 56, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Azancot in view of Partovi, further in view of Stewart.5
B. DISCUSSION
Referring to Azancot Figures 11a-c, the Examiner finds Azancot discloses
an adaptive power control system for an electromagnetic induction power transfer
apparatus comprising, inter alia, a power supply having an active state and an
inactive state. Final Act. 6.6 Azancot Figure 11a is reproduced below.

Azancot Figure 11a is a schematic diagram
of an inductive power outlet.
The Examiner finds that “1240 is the power supply, when switch 1120 is
closed, it represents the active state as the power supply is powering the inductor
1220, while when opened it represents the inactive state.” Final Act. 6 (citing
Azancot ¶¶ 126–128).

The Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that Azancot’s power supply
1240 does not operate in a plurality of states (i.e., an active state and an inactive
state).7 Appeal Br. 8. In that regard, the Appellant argues:

5 US 2006/0255131 A1, to Stewart, published November 16, 2006 (“Stewart”).
6 Final Office Action dated October 3, 2019.
7 In the Reply Brief, the Appellant argues for the first time on appeal that “Azancot
teaches away from a power supply that has both active and inactive states.” Reply
Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366

4

[T]he power supply 1240 provides substantially constant output to
the driver 1230, which, in turn, powers the primary coil 1220. The
reed switch 1120 controls whether a [sic, an] output from the driver is
able to reach the primary coil 1220. In this manner, the power supply
1240 is not at all operated in multiple states. Rather, the power supply
1240 continually outputs power such that whenever the reed switch
1120 opens or closes, electrical power may reach or may be prevented
from reaching the primary coil 1220.
Appeal Br. 8 (citing Azancot ¶ 120).
Claim 50 recites that the power supply itself has an active state and an
inactive state.8 The Appellant does not direct us to definitions of the terms “active
state” and “inactive state.” Nonetheless, the Examiner defines “active” as “able to
actively provide power” or “power supplying state” and “inactive” as “unable to
actively provide power” or “non-power supplying state.” Advisory Act.;9 Final
Act. 2. We adopt the Examiner’s definitions of “active” and “inactive” in
interpreting the claims on appeal.
The Appellant’s argument is supported by the record. Based on the
Examiner’s findings, power supply 1240 and switch 1120 are different elements.
The Examiner does not direct us to any portion of Azancot disclosing that power
supply 1240 itself has an active state and an inactive state as claimed. Rather, as
the Appellant contends, it appears that the output from power supply 1240 is

Brief dated August 5, 2020, at 3 (emphasis added). The Appellant’s argument is
not responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer.
Likewise, the Appellant has not shown good cause why the argument could not
have been raised in the Appeal Brief. For those reasons, the Appellant’s untimely
argument will not be considered on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
8 The Specification does not disclose how the claimed power supply is configured
to switch between an active state and an inactive state. See Ans. 6 (speculating as
to how the Appellant’s power supply switches between an active state and an
inactive state).
9 Advisory Action dated January 23, 2020.
Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366

5

merely gated by switch 1120. Appeal Br. 8; see also Final Act. 3 (finding that
“when the switch 1120 is turned off, it corresponds to 0% power, when the switch
is turned on, it corresponds to 100% power” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner, however, also finds that Partovi teaches a power supply
configured to switch between an active state and an inactive state at a selectable
duty cycle.10 Final Act. 6 (citing Partovi ¶¶ 34, 66, 69); see also Final Act. 19
(finding that Stewart’s power supply has an inactive state). The Appellant does not
direct us to any error in the Examiner’s finding. See Appeal Br. 8 (generally
contending that “neither Partovi nor Stewart can be read to disclose the
deficiencies of Azancot”). Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 50 is
sustained.
The Appellant does not present arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of the remaining claims on appeal. Appeal Br. 9. Therefore,
the obviousness rejections of claims 51–56, 58–60, 62, 65–68, and 70 also are
sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
50, 51, 53–
55, 58–60,
65–68, 70
103 Azancot, Partovi 50, 51, 53–
55, 58–60,
65–68, 70

10 The Examiner finds that “Duty Cycle is known to one having ordinary skill in
the art to mean that there are periods of 0% power and periods of 100% power, i.e.
there are periods of inactive power supplied and periods of active power supplied.”
Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-005761
Application 14/503,366

6

52, 56, 62 103 Azancot, Partovi,
Stewart
52, 56, 62
Overall
Outcome
50–56, 58–
60, 62, 65–
68, 70

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED