Ex Parte KAUTZ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2018

14577404 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/577,404 12/19/2014
28395 7590 07/25/2018
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FG1L
1000 TOWN CENTER
22NDFLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard William KAUTZ
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.
83399223 1593
EXAMINER
ZHANG, HAIDONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2018 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD WILLIAM KAUTZ and NEVIN AL TUNYURT
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed December 19, 2014,
the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated August 24, 2016,
Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed January 23, 2017, the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated April 7, 2017, and Appellant's Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 7, 2017. As the Appeal Brief does not include
page numbering, we cite to the Appeal Brief pages by consecutive
numbering from page 1.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Ford Global Technologies, LLC, and is
identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a wireless power transfer method, system, and
vehicle, including, in response to an indication that a secondary coil system
assembly has a two-pole configuration or a three-pole configuration,
controlling current flow in each of a pair of primary coils that are spaced
apart and positioned on a same side of a ferrite pad such that the directions
of current flow in the primary coils are opposite for the two-pole
configuration or the same for the three-pole configuration (Spec. ,r,r 3-5).
Appellant depicts a two-pole configuration with current flowing in opposite
directions in primary and secondary coils in Figures 3 and 4, and a three-
pole configuration with current flowing in the same direction in primary and
secondary coils in Figures 5 and 6 (see also Spec. ,r,r 23-26).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitations at issue
are italicized.
1. A wireless power transfer method comprising:
in response to an indication that a secondary coil
assembly has a two-pole configuration, controlling current flow
in each of a pair of primary coils that are spaced apart and
positioned on a same side of a ferrite pad such that directions of
the current flow in the primary coils are opposite; and
in response to an indication that the secondary coil
assembly has a three-pole configuration, controlling current
flow in each of the primary coils such that directions of the
current flow in the primary coils are the same.
Independent claim 3 recites a wireless power transfer system
including a pair of spaced apart inductive coils positioned on a same side of
a ferrite pad and a switching network configured to selectively operate the
2
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
coils in a two-pole mode or a three-pole mode in response to an indication of
a corresponding inductive coil assembly configuration. Independent claim
12 recites a vehicle comprising a traction battery, a second coil assembly
operatively arranged with the traction battery and having a pair of secondary
inductive coils spaced apart on a ferrite pad, and a controller configured to
send data to a corresponding primary coil assembly indicating the
configuration, either two- or three-pole, for the secondary coil assembly.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 as unpatentable over Farkas3 in view
of Sakakibara; 4
2. Claims 11 and 13 as unpatentable over Farkas and Sakakibara,
and further in view of Martin; 5 and
3. Claim 14 as unpatentable over Farkas and Sakakibara, and
further in view of Paparo. 6
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue before us in this appeal is whether Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion that, applying the
teaching of Sakakibara to Farkas, it would have been obvious to control
3 Farkas, US 2008/0265684 Al, published October 30, 2008.
4 Sakakibara et al., US 2013/0038281 Al, published February 14, 2013
("Sakakibara").
5 Martin, US 2012/0095617 Al, published April 19, 2012.
6 Paparo et al., US 2011/0204845 Al, published August 25, 2011
("Paparo").
3
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
current flow in a pair of primary coils in response to an indication that a
secondary coil assembly has a two-pole or a three-pole configuration. We
answer this question affirmatively and, therefore, reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability"). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner finds that Farkas teaches a wireless power transfer
method in which current direction in a pair of primary coils is controlled to
match a pair of secondary coils having a three-pole configuration (Final Act.
4 ). 7 The Examiner also finds Sakakibara teaches a wireless power transfer
method in which current direction in a pair of primary coils is controlled to
7 Although the Examiner finds Farkas teaches a three-pole configuration in
which current in the primary and secondary coil pairs is in the same
direction, Farkas depicts, in Figures 2 and 5(a), a two-pole configuration in
which current flow in the paired coils is in opposite directions ( compare
Farkas, Figs. 2 and 5(a) with Appellant's Figs. 3 and 4).
4
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
match a pair of secondary coils having a three-pole configuration (id. at 4--
5). 8 The Examiner finds that
[i]t is obvious an[d] logical to notice that having different directions
of current flow in corresponding coils creates two electromagnetic
[fields] that have the same direction according to the right-hand-rule,
as a result, a two-pole (left electromagnetic pole and right
electromagnetic pole) configuration is produced
(id. at 5---6).
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious
to have modified the invention of Farkas by applying the teaching of
Sakakibara to explicitly have in response to an indication that a
secondary coil assembly has a two-pole configuration, controlling
current flow in each of a pair of primary coils that are spaced apart
and positioned on a same side of a ferrite pad such that directions of
the current flow in the primary coils are opposite, for the purpose of
improving the robustness and functionality of the system to allow the
system to operate at different pole configurations
(id. at 6-7).
Appellant urges that the Examiner merely asserts, because one
reference purportedly performs two-pole wireless charging and the other
reference purportedly performs three-pole charging, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have thought to devise a system that can operate with different
pole configurations (Appeal Br. 3). Appellant contends that these references
fail to provide any indication of a two-pole or three-pole configuration (id.).
8 Although the Examiner finds Sakakibara teaches a three-pole configuration
in which current in the coil pairs is in the same direction in Figure 8 (see
Final Act. 5, annotated Sakakibara Fig. 8), Sakakibara actually depicts
current flow in coils 11 OA, 11 OB in opposite directions thereby producing a
two-pole configuration (note field direction arrows ARI and AR2 in Figure
8).
5
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
As such, Appellant argues that nothing in the references suggests that
current flow is selectively controlled to produce a two-pole or three-pole
configuration responsive to an indication that a secondary coil assembly has
a two-pole or three-pole configuration (id.; see also Reply Br. 2).
We agree. An examiner's analysis "may include recourse to logic,
judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do
not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion."
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Moreover, "[ c ]ommon sense has long been recognized to inform the
analysis of obviousness if explained with sufficient reasoning." Perfect Web
Technologies, Inc. v. Info USA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
However, like taking notice of facts beyond the record, care must be taken in
considering common sense. As stated in In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386
(Fed. Cir. 2001 ), "the Board cannot simply reach conclusions based on its
own understanding or experience - or on its assessment of what would be
basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the Board must point to some
concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings."
Although the Examiner finds Farkas teaches both two-pole and three-
pole configurations (Ans. 2-3), this fact alone does not remedy the
deficiency in the rejection with regard to the failure of the prior art to teach
or suggest that the current flow direction is selectively controlled in response
to an indication as to the secondary coil assembly's two- or three-pole
configuration. This deficiency is also not remedied by the Examiner's
observation that "it is obvious and logical to notice what might happen if the
current flow in the two coils are in different directions" (id. at 4). The
Examiner fails to explain why this logical observation necessarily leads to
6
Appeal2017-008987
Application 14/577 ,404
the fact finding that an indication of the configuration of the secondary coil
assembly would be provided and the conclusion that the primary coil
assembly current flow would be controlled in response to this indication.
Absent such, the Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing,
by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual basis for the conclusion that
the claimed invention would have been obvious.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7