13654322 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

Ex Parte Ahn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2018

13654322 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/654,322 10/17/2012 115309 7590 04/03/2018 W &T/Qualcomm 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jongshick Ahn 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 122028/1173-516 1210 EXAMINER BERHANU, SAMUEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2859 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): patents@wt-ip.com us-docketing@qualcomm.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONGSHICK AHN, ERIC B. ZEISEL, CHEONG KUN, and JENNIFER A. HAGSTROM Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 In this Decision, we reference the Specification filed Oct. 17, 2012 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated Mar. 17, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed July 21, 2016 as corrected Sept. 20, 2016 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated Feb. 3, 2017, and the Reply Brief filed Mar. 16, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Qualcomm Incorporated is the Applicant and is also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 Appellant's invention is directed to a charging device. Spec. i-f 1. According to the Specification, electronic devices may include a plurality of charging ports, i.e. a direct current (DC) charging port and a Universal Serial Bus (USB) charging port configured for coupling to a DC and USB power source, respectively. Id. i-f 2. Each charging port may be connected to a dedicated over-voltage protection (OVP) circuit that may comprise a switch. Id. When two power sources are simultaneously coupled to an electronic device, only one OVP circuit is allowed to tum on. Id. i-f 3. To prevent charging port damage, an output of a first OVP circuit should be discharged below a voltage level associated with a second OVP circuit before the second OVP circuit can be turned on. Id. An embodiment of the charging device is shown in Figure 2 below. '""'' ...__ 210Â·-\ ~l.i\,1 '-" \ -----~~--~------L-------~--~ ,r\ ;' 2<12 Lw \ ~ i 0'1erNo1tage '-. ___ / Protection Clrcuit Comparlsori Module f ~~-1~Â·~-~-~~~ r-L-1 _L_I OverÂ· \/oftage Protection Gircu~! i Driver and i Drivet and ! ~---! Charge Pump i Charge Pump !,______ _ _ t',- ,.~-----Â·l _____________________________ _J ~"~ . Â·---------------------------------- -------------------------------~ ' I 214 216 / 200' {'-"'-"-"'-"-"'-"'-"-"'-"'-"'-"-"'-"-"'-"'-"-"'-"'-"'-"'-"-"'-"-"'-"'-"'-"'-"'-"'-"-"'-"-"'-"'-"'-"'-"'-"-"'-"'-"-"'-"- i PowÂ·er A 206 ____ / ~ Supply l ............ _ ............... _ .......... _ .. _ ............. . 2 /~'\ i 204 l \-l \~j FIG. 2 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 Figure 2 illustrates a charging device having first charging port 202, second charging port 204, comparison module 212 to determine which charging port should be used for charging, and power supply 206, which may be electrically isolated from the coupled power source by comparison unit 212 until a voltage at node A is less than or equal to the voltage at the charging port which is coupled to the power source. Id. i-fi-f 16, 20, 21. A voltage level conveyed to an over-voltage protection circuit may be automatically adjusted by either first driver and charge pump 214 or second driver and charge pump 216 supplying a voltage to an associated over- protection circuit. Id. i-f 19. Before a voltage at node A reaches a minimum voltage, comparison module 212 may tum off a protection circuit that was enabled prior to power path switching and quickly tum on another protection circuit. Id. i122. Independent claims 1 and 17 are illustrative (key limitations in dispute italicized): 1. A device, comprising: a first charging port of a plurality of charging ports for coupling to a power supply via a first over-voltage protection circuit; and a comparison unit configured to couple the first charging port to the power supply based at least partially on a comparison between a voltage at an input of the first overvoltage protection circuit coupled to the first charging port and a voltage at an output of the first over-voltage protection circuit coupled to the power supply, the voltage at the output of the first over-voltage protection circuit generated by a voltage from a second charging port of the plurality of charging ports. App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix). 3 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 17. A method, comprising: comparing a first voltage at a first charging port of a plurality of charging ports and a second voltage at an input of a power supply; and coupling the first charging port to the input of the power supply upon the first voltage being less than or equal to the second voltage, the voltage at the input of the power supply generated by a voltage from a second charging port of the plurality of charging ports. App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner maintains and Appellant appeals the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a): 1. Claims 1--4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 20-22 over Tamegai3 and Paradissis; 4 2. Claims 6, 17-19, 24, and 25 over Tamegai and Paradissis in further view of Flatness; 5 3. Claims 16 and 23 over Tamegai and Paradissis in further view of Popescu-Stanesti; 6 and 4. Claims 5 and 9 over Tamegai and Paradissis in further view of Yee. 7 Ans. 2; Final Act. 2-1 O; App. Br. 6. 3 Tamegai et al., US 2009/0102427 Al, pub. Apr. 23, 2009 ("Tamegai"). 4 Paradissis, US 2009/0212635 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009 ("Paradissis"). 5 Flatness et al., US 2006/0176038 Al, pub. Aug. 10, 2006 ("Flatness"). 6 Popescu-Stanesti et al., US 2005/0253560 Al, pub. Nov. 17, 2005 ("Popescu-Stanesti"). 7 Yee et al., US 5,610,495, iss. Mar. 11, 1997 ("Yee"). 4 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 ISSUE8 Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Paradissis discloses a comparison between ( 1) a voltage at an input of a first overvoltage protection circuit coupled to a first charging port and (2) a voltage at an output of the first over-voltage protection circuit coupled to the power supply? We decide this issue in the affirmative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES After thoroughly reviewing the arguments of both the Appellant and the Examiner, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Appellant's position that the Examiner has not identified in the prior art a comparison unit that compares to a voltage at an output of the first over- voltage protection circuit coupled to the power supply required by independent claim 1 or a comparison of a first voltage and a second voltage at an input of a power supply as required by independent claim 1 7. Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Tamegai discloses a device having a plurality of charging ports and a comparison unit, however, Tamegai's comparison unit compares the plurality of charging ports' voltage with a predetermined range having lower and upper voltage limits. Final Act. 3 (citing Tamegai i-fi-f 15-16, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner further finds that Pardissis discloses a comparison unit 16 configured to compare a voltage at 8 Appellant argues claims 1--4, 7, 8, 10-15, and 20-22 as a group and argues claims 6, 17-19, 24, and 25 as a group. App. Br. 7-12. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and based upon the lack of arguments directed to the subsidiary rejections, claims 2-5, 7-16, and 20-23 will stand or fall together with independent claim 1 and claims 6, 18, 19, 24, and 25 will stand or fall with claim 1 7. 5 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 an input of a first over voltage protection circuit coupled to a first charging port 12 with a voltage at an output of the first over-voltage protection circuit coupled to the power supply because first power supply 12 and second power supply 14 are compared to comparison circuit 16 and output power is based on the comparison values. Id. at 4 (citing Paradissis i-fi-f 10, 18, 44--47, Fig. 1 ). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to implement the input and output voltage comparator unit of Paradissis in Tamegai's apparatus in order to selectively couple one of the plurality of power supplies to a load or charging device for effectively controlling power flow from a plurality of power supply devices. Id. Regarding claim 1 7, the Examiner does not make any findings regarding Paradissis, but further finds that Flatness discloses "coupling the charging port to the input of the power supply upon the first voltage being less than or equal to the second voltage" and determines that it would have been obvious to connect the input voltage of Tamegai with the output node or power supply when the input voltage is less than the output voltage taught by Flatness in order to conserve power. Id. at 7-8 (citing Flatness i145, Fig. 1 ). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because Paradissis teaches comparing two of the same things (power supply 12 and power supply 14) rather than comparing different types of signals as required by claim 1 : Appellant claims a comparison of inputs that are different from the disclosed comparison inputs of Paradissis. Stated another way, Paradissis teaches comparing two similar inputs, namely a first voltage on a first charging port with a second voltage on a second charging port. In contrast, Appellant claims comparing different types of nodes. Specifically, Appellant discloses a 6 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 comparison between (1) a voltage at a charging port and (2) a voltage at the [output of the first over-voltage protection circuit/input of the power supply]. Appellant notes that a charging port and a power supply are not one and the same. Specifically, Paradissis does not teach a "comparison between a voltage at [a] charging port and ... the voltage at the [output of the first over-voltage protection circuit/input of the power supply! generated by a voltage from [second charging port/a non- selected one] of the [plurality of/first and second] charging ports," as claimed by Appellant. App. Br. 8-9. Regarding claim 1 7, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not shown that all of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in the cited art even if Flatness does teach what the Examiner finds it teaches. Id. at 11-12. In response, the Examiner finds that Tamegai discloses power supply node Vout receives power from first charging port 102 and/or second charging port 104 and charges battery 114 via charging circuit 112. Ans. 3. The Examiner further responds that Tamegai's controller 14 determines which of the first or second power supplies should be switch on to provide power to the charging circuit based on a comparison of power port 102 and 104 with a reference or allowable voltage range by detection unit 12. Id. The Examiner further finds that Tamegai explicitly teaches comparing the power values of two charging ports 102, 104 to a reference value or allowable range, but "is silent about comparing the two charging port inputs (or the two power supplies) each other." Id. The Examiner finds that such a comparison between two given power supplies is taught by Paraissis and determines that it would have been obvious to combine with Tamegai for controlling the power flow. Id. at 3--4. 7 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 Regarding Appellant's argument that Paradissis teaches comparing two similar inputs whereas Appellant claims comparing different types of nodes, the Examiner responds that Tamegai's Figure 1 shows a plurality of charging ports (elements 102 and 104) coupled with power supply node Vout, thus "[ e Jach port is connected with different nodes but compared with reference values not each other." Id. at 4 (citing Tamegai Fig. 1 ). The Examiner further finds that Paradissis discloses two power supplies 12 and 14 are compared by comparison element 16 and power is provided to the load based on the comparison result. Id. The Examiner additionally responds that all the claimed elements of Appellant's inventions were known in the prior art and that a skilled artisan could have combined them by known methods with no change in their respective functions. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that claim 1 "recites a comparison of voltages on each side (i.e., the 'input' and the 'output' of the same circuit (i.e., the 'first over-voltage protection circuit)" and that "claim 1 does not recite 'comparing the two charging port inputs [] [with] each other."' Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellant, neither Paradissis nor Tamegai teaches "a comparison between a voltage at an input of the first over-voltage protection circuit coupled to the first charging port and a voltage at an output of the first over- voltage protection circuit" are recited in claim 1, thus, the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at 3. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the teachings of either Tamegai or Paradissis regarding their selection and comparison circuits disclose or suggest Appellant's comparison unit required by claim 1, which is configured to couple a 8 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 first charging port to the power supply based at least partially on a comparison between a voltage of an input of the first over-voltage protection circuit and a voltage at an output of the first over-protection coupled to the power supply. To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). The Examiner finds (Ans. 3) that Tamegai teaches a plurality of charging ports (elements 102 and 104) coupled with power supply node Vout, therefore each of Tamegai' s ports is connected with different nodes, however, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how a skilled artisan in view of the cited prior art would have configured a comparison unit to make the claimed comparison using these different nodes. It is insufficient that "all the claimed elements of applicant's inventions were known in the prior art" (Ans. 4). An invention "composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner's findings with regard to independent claim 17 are likewise insufficient because they do not show how all the claim limitations are taught or suggested by the prior art. Specifically, the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 7-8) that a skilled artisan would connect the input voltage of Tamegai with the output node or power supply when the input voltage is less than the output voltage taught by Flatness does not adequately explain how the comparing step of claim 17 is met by the teachings of Tamegai. App. Br. 10-12. The deficiency in the rejection of claim 17 identified by 9 Appeal2017-006764 Application 13/654,322 Appellant is not addressed in the Examiner's Answer. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 17. Because the secondary references cited by the Examiner do not cure the deficiencies discussed above in the rejections of the independent claims, we likewise find the rejections of dependent claim 2-16 and 18-25 are not supported by the preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal record. Accordingly, on this record, we reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1-25. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1- 25. ORDER The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 10