Ex Parte Aleyraz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 5, 2010

11132203 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ZEEV ALEYRAZ,
SHEMUEL GAL, and
GENNADI FINKELSHTAIN
____________________

Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: April 5, 2010
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention is an apparatus that “identifies
[a] powered device and selects the appropriate power, voltage, and/or
current levels to operate the identified device” (Spec. [0005]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus to couple a power source to a powered
device, comprising:

a power manager structured and arranged to adjust at
least one of voltage, current and power supplied from the power
source to the powered device based upon consumption
requirements of the powered device; and

a device coordinator structured and arranged to identify
the powered device and to forward the identified device's
consumption requirements for at least one of voltage, current
and power to said power manager.

Prior Art
Potega 6,459,175 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Potega.
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

3

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
(1) Appellants argue claims 1 and 8-10 as a group on the basis of
claim 1 (App. Br. 9-14). We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim. We therefore treat claims 8-10 as standing or falling
with representative claim 1.
(2) Appellants argue claims 15 and 19 as a group on the basis of
claim 15 (id. at 14-19). We select independent claim 15 as the
representative claim. We therefore, treat claim 19 as standing or falling with
representative claim 15.
(3) Appellants argue claims 2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 separately (id.
at 19). We choose to treat these claims as a group.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1, 8-10
Appellants argue that their invention is not anticipated by Potega
(App. Br. 9-14). Specifically, Appellants argue Potega does not disclose a
device coordinator but instead describes a controllable regulator (App. Br. 9-
10). Further, Appellants argue that Potega discloses a universal power
supply and that the power supplied is based upon the power drawn by the
supplied device not upon identification of the device (App. Br. 10). Potega,
Appellants argue, determines the consumption requirements of the supplied
device when the battery is present, based upon the draw from the battery
rather than on the identification of the powered device (id. at 10-11).
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

4
Appellants also argue that the look-up table of Potega cannot
“identify” a device, but instead makes an assumption regarding the type of
powered device in use based on a genus of devices using that voltage (App.
Br. 11-12). Therefore, Appellants argue that Potega does not disclose
identifying the powered device or sending consumption requirements to a
power manager as claimed (id. at 11).
In response, the Examiner finds that Potega discloses an internal logic
circuit that accesses a look-up table to determine profile information typical
to device types and thus, regulate the power to the device (Ans. 7).
Therefore, the Examiner finds, that it inherently necessitates identifying the
device to adjust the voltage delivered (Ans. 7-8). As a result, the Examiner
finds, that Potega discloses “forwarding of the identified device’s
consumption requirements for at least one of voltage, current and power to
said power manager” as claimed (Ans. 8).

Issue 1: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Potega discloses a device coordinator structured and arranged to identify the
powered device and to forward the identified device’s consumption
requirements for at least one of voltage, current, and power to the power
manager?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Potega Reference
(1) Potega relates to a universal, "plug and play" power supply.
More particularly, the invention relates to a universal power supply that is
able to deliver automatically the varied power requirements of multiple
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

5
diverse devices attached to it and simultaneously and independently adjust
the voltage or current or both supplied to each device. (col.1, ll. 8-13). A
power supply detects the power requirements of a connected electrical
device and configures itself to provide the correct power to the device
(Abstract).
(2) The output voltage of the controllable power supply increases
from a default voltage of 0 volts when a supplied device is connected (col.
17, ll. 62-67). An internal logic circuit detects a change in state in a supplied
device (col. 18, ll. 4-5). When a change is detected, the logic circuit waits
for the power supply’s output to stabilize and then directs the power supply
to increase its voltage (col. 18, ll. 18-20). The logic circuit determines how
much the voltage should increase using a look-up table which contains a
profile of “typical” supplied device types (col. 18, ll. 20-22). The look-up
table includes generic output-voltage-related-to-device types (col. 18, ll.
22-24).
(3) The present output voltage is then compared to the look-up
table information (col. 18, ll. 27-29). Based on the genre identified, the
voltage increase can be proportionately larger or smaller compare to other
identified genres (col. 18, ll. 29-36). The power supply's output voltage is
increased or decreased by a percentage determined by device categories in
the look-up table as instructed by the logic circuit (col. 18, ll. 36-40).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

6
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “[I]f
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellants do not provide any definition or structure for the recited
“device coordinator.” Appellants recite, in claim 1, a “device coordinator”
that is arranged to identify the powered device and forward consumption
requirements to the power manager. We find that the logic circuit of Potega
is structured and arranged to identify the power device using the look-up
table (FF 2) and to forward the requirements to the power manager (FF 3).
Appellants do not recite the criteria used to identify the powered device or
the granularity of identification as argued. We find Potega does identify the
powered device as Potega identifies the category or genre of the device (FF
2). Moreover, we find the logic circuit is structured and arranged to forward
the consumption requirements to the controllable regulator (FF 4). Thus,
we find that Potega describes a device controller structured and arranged as
recited.
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 15 and 19
Appellants assert that Potega does not identify the consumption
requirements through communication between the powered device and the
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

7
connection device. Instead, Appellants argue that Potega states the power
supply retrieves information from the battery based on the draw “without
any direct dependency on the supplied device” (App. Br. 15).

The Examiner finds Potega discloses the voltage requirements which
are to be used by controllable regulator 25, are directly retrieved from the
powered device (Ans. 5). Thus, the Examiner finds that this would
necessitate communicating via the connector 42 (id.).

Issue 2: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding Potega
discloses identifying consumption requirements of the powered device
through communication between the powered device and the connection
device?

FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)

Potega Reference
(4) Figure 10 illustrates a power supply 64 module, a universal
connector 42, a battery device 43, and a supplied device 54 that
communicate with each other (col. 48, ll. 3-7). Data is read from the
supplied (or powered) device (col. 61, l. 60). Information acquired by a
power supply 26 is transferred to the supplied device 54 through the
connector 42 (col. 62, ll. 18-30).

ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments argued with respect to claim 1. As set
forth above in Issue 1, with respect to claim 1, we find Potega discloses
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

8
identifying consumption requirements of the powered device. We further
find the power supply, connector (connection device), and supplied device
(powered device) communicate and through this communication information
is fed to the logic circuit to identify the consumption requirements of the
powered device (FF 4). Therefore, we find Potega discloses “identifying
consumption requirements of the powered device through communication
between the powered device and the connection device” as recited in claim
15.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claim 2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20
With respect to each of claims 2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20, Appellants
have: (1) merely recited the language of the claim, (2) asserted that the
limitations are not taught or suggested by Potega and that the Examiner has
failed to provide an adequate evidentiary basis to support the rejection, and,
(3) failed to respond to the specifics of the Examiner’s rejections (see App.
Br. 18-27; see also Ans. 4-6 and 8-10).
For each of claims 2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20, Appellants did not
present separate arguments for patentability. We note that a statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not brought forward any
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings for each of claims 2-
7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 for anticipation by Potega.

Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

9
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Potega
discloses a device coordinator structured and arranged to identify the
powered device and to forward the identified device’s consumption
requirements for at least one of voltage, current, and power to the power
manager. Thus, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding claim 1 is anticipated by Potega. Since claims 8-10 depend from
representative and independent claim 1 and claims 8-10 were not argued
separately, claims 8-10 fall with representative claim 1. Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Potega.
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding Potega
discloses identifying consumption requirements of the powered device
through communication between the powered device and the connection
device. Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding
claim 15 is anticipated by Potega. Since claim 19 depends from
representative and independent claim 15 and claim 19 was not argued
separately, claim 19 stands/falls with representative claim 15. Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Potega.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims
2-7, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are anticipated by Potega.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Potega is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-008744
Application 11/132,203

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

Vsh

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON VA 20191