David W. Baarman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2018005724 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
14/146,969 01/03/2014 David W. Baarman 2008P02017US03 4101
24737 7590 07/02/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DAVID W. BAARMAN, SCOTT A. MOLLEMA, and
JOSHUA K. SCHWANNECKE
__________

Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, 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 rejecting claims 19–36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Philips IP
Ventures B.V. Appeal Brief dated February 21, 2018 (“App. Br.”), at 2.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

2

The claims on appeal are directed to an inductive power supply for
transferring power to a remote device, such as a cell phone, and a method of
inductively transferring power to a remote device.
Representative claim 27 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief.
27. An inductive power supply for transferring power to a remote
device, said inductive power supply comprising:
a primary coil assembly having a plurality of primary coils;
memory storing a plurality of inductive power supply control
methods, wherein each of said plurality of inductive power supply
control methods is different, and wherein operation according to each
of said plurality of inductive power supply control methods enables
supply of power inductively;
a communication system for receiving information regarding a
first remote device control identification class, a second remote device
control identification class, and a remote device power class;
a controller configured to select in response to said first control
identification class, one of said plurality of inductive power supply
control methods from among said plurality of inductive power supply
control methods stored in memory to supply power inductively to the
remote device, and wherein said controller is configured to select in
response to said second, different, control identification class, a different
one of said plurality of inductive power supply control methods from
among said plurality of inductive power supply control methods stored
in memory to supply power inductively to the remote device;
wherein said controller is configured to select one or more of
said plurality of primary coils of said primary coil assembly for
transferring power to said remote device based on at least one of said
remote device power class, said first remote device control
identification class, and said second remote device control
identification class and initiate power transfer to the remote device
with said selected inductive power supply control method over said
one or more selected primary coils.
App. Br. 25–26.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

3

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
(1) claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the
written description requirement; and
(2) claims 19–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nakamura et al.2 in view of Partovi et al.3
B. DISCUSSION
1. Rejection (2)
The Appellant states that “[t]he obviousness rejection of claims 19–36 is
being argued as a group such that all claims stand or fall together.” App. Br. 7.
Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, we focus our attention on claim 27.
Claim 27 is directed to an inductive power supply for transferring power to a
remote device comprising, inter alia,
a communication system for receiving information regarding a
first remote device control identification class, a second remote device
control identification class, and a remote device power class [and]
a controller configured to select in response to said first control
identification class, one of said plurality of inductive power supply
control methods from among said plurality of inductive power supply
control methods stored in memory to supply power inductively to the
remote device, and wherein said controller is configured to select in
response to said second, different, control identification class, a
different one of said plurality of inductive power supply control
methods from among said plurality of inductive power supply control
methods stored in memory to supply power inductively to the remote
device . . . .
App. Br. 25–26 (emphases added).
The Appellant discloses:

2 US 2005/0068019 A1, published March 31, 2005 (“Nakamura”).
3 US 7,952,322 B2, issued May 31, 2011 (“Partovi”).
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

4

The control identification classes may identify different control
methods for the inductive power supply to use to charge or power the
remote device. Examples of control identification classes include
charging set point control, charging error control, power supply set
point control, power supply error control and power supply direct
control.
Spec. ¶ 68 (emphasis added).
The Appellant discloses that a remote device power class “categorizes how
much power the remote device desires.” Spec. ¶ 58. In one embodiment, the
Appellant discloses that a low power class is defined as devices that desire between
0 and 5 watts of power (e.g., a cell phone), a medium power class is defined as
devices that desire between 5 and 110 watts of power (e.g., a laptop computer), and
a high power class is defined as devices that desire more than 110 watts of power
(e.g., a kitchen appliance). Spec. ¶ 59.
Thus, “a power class identifies the amount of power that a device will
receive [and] a control identification class identifies the method that the system
will use to deliver that power.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis added).
First, we address the method that the claimed invention uses to deliver
power, i.e., the plurality of inductive power supply control methods. The
Examiner finds Nakamura discloses an inductive power supply for transferring
power to a remote device (e.g., a portable telephone) according to an “inductive
power supply control method.” Non-Final Act. 9.4 The Examiner finds Nakamura
does not expressly disclose that different control identification classes5 result in the

4 Non-Final Office Action dated September 25, 2017.
5 The Appellant does not provide a definition of “control identification class” in the
Specification. The Examiner, however, finds that a remote device control
identification class is code identifying power reception equipment. Non-Final Act.
8.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

5

selection of different power supply control methods as recited in claim 27. Non-
Final Act. 9. Likewise, the Examiner finds “Nakamura does not expressly disclose
storing these control methods in memory or selecting more than one of the
methods.” Non-Final Act. 9. The Examiner, however, finds Partovi discloses an
inductive power supply comprising a memory for storing a plurality of different
inductive power supply control methods and a controller configured to select a
control method in response to a particular remote device control identification
class. Non-Final Act. 9–10.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Partovi discloses two different power
supply control methods. Non-Final Act. 11. The first and second power supply
control methods are said to be “‘power supply error control’, where feedback is
used to correct error (deviation) in the amount of power supplied to the load,” and
a third power supply control method is said to be “‘power supply direct control’,
where the receiver does not include a battery and the transmitter powers the load
directly.” Non-Final Act. 11; see also App. Br. 26 (reciting, in claim 29, that
inductive power supply control methods include “power supply error control” and
“power supply direct control”); Non-Final Act. 12 (finding that Partovi discloses at
least two power supply control methods from the list recited in claim 29). The
Examiner finds that “[s]ince the Partovi information results in the selection of a
power supply control method, it is proper to interpret that information as regarding
a remote device control identification class.” Non-Final Act. 11. In other words,
the Examiner finds Partovi teaches that each power supply control method is
selected in response to a corresponding control identification class. See Ans. 56

6 Examiner’s Answer dated March 22, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

6

(finding that the selection between control methods is based on information from a
receiver or mobile device).
The Examiner relies on column 10 of Partovi to teach that “information
received from the receiver [or mobile device] results in the selection of one of two
power supply control methods (that are stored in memory).” Non-Final Act. 10
(emphasis added). The Appellant argues that that portion of Partovi “does not
teach or suggest using information received from a receiver to select one of
multiple power supply control methods stored in memory.” App. Br. 16.
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Partovi
discloses that the duty cycle of the switch in a charger circuit can be changed to
provide the appropriate voltage/current in the receiver after being informed “about
the voltage/current characteristics of the [receiver or the mobile] device.” Partovi,
col. 10, ll. 13–21. Alternatively, Partovi discloses that the frequency of the switch
can be changed to create the appropriate voltage in the receiver. Partovi, col. 10,
ll. 25–27. Finally, Partovi discloses that the duty cycle, frequency, and/or voltage
of the switch can be adjusted to achieve the desired voltage/current in the mobile
device. Partovi, col. 10, ll. 29–34.
There appears to be no dispute on this record that at least duty cycle and
frequency are control points of respective different control methods. See Reply Br.
77 (arguing that “different control points” include frequency and duty cycle); App.
Br. 20 (arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
“inherently included within different control methods are control methods that are
different because they have different control points”); Ans. 9 (finding that “[s]ince
Partovi discloses different frequency and duty cycle values, it follows that

7 Reply Brief dated May 14, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

7

Partovi[] discloses different control points and different control methods”). Thus,
we find that Partovi suggests that at least two control points (i.e., duty cycle and
frequency) of at least two respective control methods may be changed in response
to characteristics or a control identification class of the receiver or mobile device.8
Second, turning to the claimed remote device power class (i.e., the amount
of power that a device will receive), the Examiner finds Nakamura’s
communication system receives information regarding “information on consumed
power,” which corresponds to the claimed remote device power class. Non-Final
Act. 8; Ans. 8. The Appellant argues that “information on consumed power” is not
indicative of the amount of power the remote device “desires,” in contrast to the
claimed remote device power class, and thus is not a remote device power class as
claimed. App. Br. 12; see also Spec. ¶ 58 (disclosing that a power class
“categorizes how much power the remote device desires”).
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Nakamura
discloses that the level of power to be transmitted is determined from a signal
containing “information on consumed power” received from a device (e.g., a
portable telephone). Nakamura ¶ 91. Based on that information, a coil for
transmitting power is said to be selected and the required power is transmitted to
the power reception equipment. Nakamura ¶ 91. To illustrate, Nakamura discloses
that “in a case where the power of the power reception equipment is small, a coil
with a large number of turns is used” and “[i]n a case where the power of the

8 Notably, the Appellant does not direct us to any evidence establishing reversible
error in the Examiner’s finding that the information received from the receiver or
mobile device in Partovi, which results in the selection of a power supply control
method, corresponds to the claimed remote device control identification class. See
Non-Final Act. 10, 11.
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

8

power reception equipment is large, a coil with a small number of turns is used.”
Nakamura ¶ 91. Thus, we find that Nakamura discloses a remote device power
class as claimed. See Ans. 7 (finding that “[t]he Nakamura ‘information on
consumed power’ is a communicated signal that commands the transmitter to
select one of three power levels, in the same manner as explained by the
[Appellant’s] (specification, par 69)”].
In sum, the Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 19–36
is sustained.
2. Rejection (1)
Claims 33 and 34 recite that “each of the plurality of inductive power supply
control methods enables supply of power inductively based on a different control
point.” App. Br. 27 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds the term “control point” appears once in the
Specification at paragraph 64, which states that “[d]uring active power transfer
mode 908, the presence of the device and the status of the control point is
continually checked 910 in a feedback loop with control feedback packets from the
remote device 912.” Non-Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds there is no written
description support for “different” control points as claimed. Non-Final Act. 7.
The Appellant argues “that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have understood that different inductive power supply control
methods include inductive power supply control methods that enable supply of
power inductively based on different control points.” App. Br. 19. The Appellant,
however, does not direct us to any portion of the original disclosure defining the
term “control point” or describing the relationship between a control point and a
control method, whereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

9

that, at the time the instant Application was filed, the Appellant has possession of
“different” control points. See Ans. 15 (finding that the Appellant has not defined
“control point”).
The Appellant argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would have appreciated and understood that control identification
classes may identify different control methods and that inherently included within
different control methods are control methods that are different because they have
different control points.” App. Br. 20 (emphasis added). The Appellant, however,
does not direct us to any evidence that supports a finding of inherency. See Ans.
15 (finding that the Appellant provides no support for the inherency statement).
Based on the foregoing, a preponderance of the evidence of record supports
the Examiner’s finding that the Appellant’s original disclosure does not provide
written description support for “a different control point” recited in claims 33 and
34. Therefore, the rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, based on the written description requirement, is sustained.
C. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–36 103(a) Nakamura, Partovi 19–36
33, 34 112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
33, 34
Overall
Outcome
19–36

Appeal 2018-005724
Application 14/146,969

10

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