Ex Parte McFarthing

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

14138480 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
14/138,480 12/23/2013 Anthony Lawrence MCFARTHING 116418-354UT1 4110
123305 7590 03/13/2018
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP/Qualcomm
525 B Street, Suite 2200
San Diego, CA 92101
EXAMINER
BALSECA, FRANKLIN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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 @ procopio .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 ANTHONY LAWRENCE McFARTHING
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8, 11—16, 19, and 23—28. Claims
7, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20-22 have been canceled. See App. Br. 20-24 (Claims
App’x.). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
Qualcomm Technologies International, LTD. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “measurement of the
performance of wireless charging.” Spec. 1:5—6. Claim 1, which is
illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A method of measuring wireless charging performance
comprising:
providing an oscillation signal to a power measurement
apparatus, the oscillation signal comprising a wave that oscillates
between a known first voltage level and a known second voltage
level;
setting a receiver gain of the measurement apparatus based
on measured voltage levels produced in response to receiving the
oscillation signal wave at the known first and second voltage
levels;
transmitting a wireless charging signal;
subsequent to setting the receiver gain, measuring a
transmitted power of the wireless charging signal by measuring
voltage and current of a signal provided to an antenna for
transmitting the wireless charging signal, measuring a relative
phase of the voltage and the current, and calculating the
transmitted power based on the voltage, the current and the
relative phase;
receiving an indication of a received power from the
wireless charging signal received by a device; and
determining wireless charging performance based on the
measured transmitted power and the indication of the received
power.
2
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Tiets worth
Zortea
Terada et al.
Kim et al.
US 5,999,889 Dec. 7, 1999
US 8,134,410 B1 Mar. 13,2012
US 2012/0149307 Al June 14, 2012
US 2012/0286726 Al Nov. 15, 2012
Nitin Saxena, Electrical Engineering 36 (2010) (“Saxena”).
Rejections
Claims 1—6, 11—16, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Terada and Zortea.
Final Act. 2—7.
Claims 8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Terada, Zortea, and Kim. Final Act. 8.
Claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Terada, Zortea, and Tietsworth.
Final Act. 9—10.2
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Terada and
Zortea teaches or suggests
measuring a transmitted power of the wireless charging signal by
measuring voltage and current of a signal provided to an antenna
for transmitting the wireless charging signal, measuring a
relative phase of the voltage and the current, and calculating the
2 Although the heading of the rejection indicates that the rejection is based
on Terada, Zortea, and Kim, the Examiner indicates that the rejection is
based on Terada, Zortea, and Tietsworth. Ans. 4.
3
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
transmitted power based on the voltage, the current and the
relative phase,
as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Terada, Zortea,
and Tietsworth teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 23?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Terada, Zortea,
and Tietsworth teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 24?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds, and Appellant
does not dispute, Terada teaches or suggests “measuring a transmitted power
of the wireless charging signal.” Final Act. 3 (citing Terada Tflf 4, 6). The
Examiner further finds:
Terada does not explicitly teach that the transmitted power
is measured based on the voltage provided to the antenna, the
current provided to the antenna and the relative phase of the
voltage and the current. However, it is well known in the art that
the formula to calculate power is P = V *1 *cos (cp) where cp is
the relative phase of the voltage and the current. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have determined the transmitted power by
measuring the voltage and the current provided to the antenna
and the relative phase of the voltage and the current because
using the above formula is a simple and fast way to calculate
power.
Final Act. 3. In response to Appellant’s argument that “the [EJxaminer . . .
[fails to] provide[] any documentary evidence for the ‘core factual findings’
that ‘ [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have determined the transmitted
power by measuring the voltage and the current provided to the antenna and
4
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
the relative phase of the voltage and the current because using the above
formula is a simple and fast way to calculate power’” and “[t]he Examiner
does not cite any reference in support, or present any further rationale to
support this conclusory statement” (App. Br. 10—11), the Examiner relies
upon Saxena “as proof that calculating/measuring power using the voltage,
current and phase is well known in the art” (Ans. 3 (citing Saxena 36)).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellant argues “the use of ‘relative phase’ in
calculating power is wholly absent from the references of record” and
“neither Terada nor Zortea suggest ‘measuring a relative phase of the
voltage and the current,’ as recited in claim 1, nor do they even mention a
phase angle between the voltage and the current.” App. Br. 14. Appellant
further argues:
Saxena discloses multiple equations for “power in an AC
circuit.” Saxena notes that knowing “average power” is “more
desirable” than instantaneous power. Included among the three
equations for average power is the equation for active power,
VI*cos(theta), in addition to apparent power and reactive power.
The Examiner appears to cherry-pick the active power equation
out of the three in order to satisfy the rejection. However, the
mere existence of the equation somewhere in a textbook does not
teach or suggest using it in the context of Appellant’s invention.
Appellant does not dispute the presence or use of the disclosed
average power equation, VI*cos(theta), in the electrical arts.
Instead Appellant disputes that it is proper to combine the
suggested disclosures in the manner presented on the record.
Reply Br. 4—5. Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner “provides no
explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would choose to
measure ‘a relative phase of the voltage and the current,’ and then choose to
utilize the relative phase to determine measured power.” App. Br. 14.
5
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
Appellant further argues “Saxena appears to disclose that ‘average power’
should be used, since ‘it is more desirable to know the value of a complete
cycle of AC’” and that this teaching “apparently teaches away from claim 1
that uses only the equation for active power.” Reply Br. 5.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
987—88 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
Terada describes a transmitter and a receiver that perform non-contact
power transmission using a magnetic resonance phenomenon (i.e., a method
of wireless charging). Terada 14. Terada teaches that the transmitter
includes “a transmitted power detection circuit that measures transmitted
power.” Id. There are a finite number of ways measuring transmitted
power. For example, Terada’s power detection circuit teaches measuring
instantaneous power or average power. See Saxena 36. Saxena teaches that
it is more desirable to know the value of power for a complete cycle of
alternating current (AC) and that average power may be classified as
apparent power, active/real/true power (referred to herein as “real power”),
or reactive power. Id. Given the finite number of choices available for
measuring transmitted power, we agree with the Examiner it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art to configure Terada’s
power detection circuit to implement the approach reflected in Appellant’s
claims. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market
6
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp”). Accordingly, we find
the Examiners rationale for combining the references to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Further, Appellant provides no persuasive
argument or evidence that configuring Terada’s power detection circuit in
such a manner proffered by the Examiner was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 419); see also KSR, 550 at 420-21 (skilled artisans can “fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 1 and claims 2—6, 8, 11—16, 19, and 25—28, which are not separately
argued with particularity. See App. Br. 14—15.
Claims 23 and 24
Claim 23 depends from claim 1 and recites:
wherein measuring the voltage of the signal provided to the
antenna for transmitting the wireless charging signal comprises:
connecting a first input of the measurement
apparatus to a ground; and
connecting a second input of the measurement
apparatus to a first potential divider that is connected to a
first node at an output of a power amplifier producing the
signal provided to the antenna.
7
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
App. Br. 23. Appellant contends the combination of Terada, Zortea, and
Tietsworth fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 23. App.
Br. 16—17; Reply Br. 6—7. Appellant argues:
Tietsworth discloses an “antenna performance monitor”
that can generate “outputs representative of impedance
magnitude and phase angle of the antenna substantially
concurrently with changes in frequency of the radio frequency
signal.” Tietsworth, at Abstract. Tietsworth discloses that the
elements Rg, Lg, and Cg of FIG. 1 are not actual elements in the
circuit, but rather represent the equivalent circuit for transmitting
antenna 15. See, id., at Col. 2, 11. 20-33 (emphasis added).
However, Tietsworth, either in FIG. 1 or in the accompanying
description, fails to teach or suggest a potential divider connected
to a node that corresponds to the claimed “first node at an output
of a power amplifier.”
The common point at the output of the secondary of the
transformer 17 and the input to the antenna 15 in FIG. 1 of
Tietsworth cannot represent the claimed node, because there is
no potential divider connected at this node in Tietsworth. “The
voltage at the antenna feed point is designated as Va and the
current as la.” Id., at Col. 2, 11. 34-35.
App. Br. 16. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
The Examiner finds “Tietsworth’s teachings are equivalent... to the
claimed circuitry because the points where current and voltage are measured
in Tietsworth’s invention provides the same measurements of the antenna’s
current and voltage than the measurements of the antenna’s current and
voltage that is being claimed.” Ans. 4.
Having considered the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings in Tietsworth, we find the Examiner has failed to provide
sufficient findings that show that Tietsworth teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Although the Examiner finds Tietsworth teaches an equivalent
8
Appeal 2017-008496
Application 14/138,480
circuit, the Examiner fails to explain why it would have been obvious to
connect a first input of the measurement apparatus to a ground and connect a
second input of the measurement apparatus to a first potential divider that is
connected to a first node at an output of a power amplifier producing the
signal provided to the antenna, as required by claim 23. As such, the
Examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis. In re
Warner, 379, F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not,
because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
its factual basis”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23
and claim 24, which depends therefrom. Appellant’s arguments raise
additional issues regarding the rejection of claim 24. However, because we
find this issue to be dispositive, we do not reach these additional issues.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8, 11—16, 19, and
25-28.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9