Ex Parte Mukherjee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2018

14043516 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 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.
14/043,516 10/01/2013 Subhashish Mukherjee TI-70288 7436
23494 7590 03/07/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
JUSTUS, RALPH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUBHASHISH MUKHERJEE,
YOGESH DARWHEKAR, and GIREESH RAJENDRAN
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-17, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments
Incorporated. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to
“communication antennas and more particularly to [an] antenna solution
for wireless charging and near field communication in wireless devices.”
Spec. ^ l.2
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 14 exemplify the claims on appeal and read
as follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. An antenna arrangement comprising:
an outer antenna structure in a form of a flat coil having
N1 number of turns, wherein N1 is an integer;
an inner antenna structure coupled to the outer antenna
structure, the inner antenna structure is in a form of a flat coil
having N2 number of turns, wherein N2 is an integer; and
the outer antenna structure and the inner antenna
structure are separated by a distance D,
wherein the outer antenna structure and the inner antenna
structure combined is designed for charging a wireless charging
unit.
14. A method comprising:
coupling a first port of a single antenna to a first coupling
circuit;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 1, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed April 21, 2016; “Adv. Act.” for the Advisory Action, mailed
June 30, 2016; “Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed July 21, 2016; and “Ans.”
for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 16, 2016. We note that
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner’s factual findings
and legal conclusions in the Answer.
2
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
coupling a second port of the single antenna to a second
coupling circuit;
coupling a wireless charging unit to the first coupling
circuit;
coupling an NFC [near field communication] transceiver
block to the second coupling circuit;
isolating the single antenna from the wireless charging
unit during a time interval when the NFC transceiver block is
operational; and
isolating the single antenna from the NFC transceiver
block during a time interval when the wireless charging unit is
operational,
wherein the single antenna comprises an outer antenna
structure and an inner antenna structure, the inner antenna
structure is placed within the outer antenna structure.
Br. 9, 11 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Baarman et al.
(“Baarman”)
US 2011/0115303 Al May 19, 2011
Finn US 2012/0038445 Al Feb. 16, 2012
Suzuki et al. US 2014/0333253 Al Nov. 13,2014
(“Suzuki”) (filed May 13,2013)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Baarman and Suzuki. Final Act. 3—4.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Suzuki, Finn, and Baarman. Final Act. 4-13.
3
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-17 in light of
Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 3-13), Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and Answer (Ans. 2-18).
We add the following to address and emphasize specific factual findings,
legal conclusions, and arguments.
The §103 Rejection of Claims 14 and 16
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 because
“[njeither Baarman nor Suzuki teaches designing a single antenna for NFC
and wireless charging.” Br. 4. More specifically, Appellants assert Suzuki’s
inner power-receiving coil 4 and outer NFC antenna coil 3 are “two distinct
elements.” Id. Appellants also assert “Suzuki provides no reference to ‘the
first coupling circuit’ and ‘a second coupling circuit’ as recited in Claim 14.”
Id. at 5. Based on that assertion, Appellants contend “Suzuki and Baarman
alone or in combination” fail to teach “coupling a first port of a single
antenna to a first coupling circuit; [and] coupling a second port of the single
antenna to a second coupling circuit.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds: (1) Suzuki discloses “an apparatus comprising a single
antenna,” in particular, a “combo coil module” that “combin[es] a near field
communication antenna coil for near field communication, and a wireless
power receiving coil for wireless charging”; and (2) Baarman discloses
(a) “a single antenna” comprising secondary coil 346 and communication
coil 348 and (b) switches as coupling circuits that (i) in a first configuration
4
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
couple a first port of the single antenna to a wireless charging unit and (ii) in
a second configuration couple a second port of the single antenna to a near
field communication (NFC) transceiver block. Ans. 13-14; see Final
Act. 3—4; Adv. Act. 2; see also Suzuki 2, 10-11, 13, 27-29, Figs. 1A, 7A;
Baarman 55-57, 60-63, Figs. 3—4.
Consequently, in agreement with the Examiner, we find the
combination of disclosures in Baarman and Suzuki teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations in claim 14. Hence, we sustain the § 103 rejection of
claim 14.
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent
claim 16. Br. 4-5. Because Appellants do not argue the claim separately,
we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons as claim 14.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The §103 Rejection of Claims 1—3, 5—13, 15, and 17
Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Suzuki, Finn, and Baarman do not “in combination or individually teach an
inner antenna structure coupled to the outer antenna structure, and the outer
antenna structure and the inner antenna structure combined is designed for
charging a wireless charging unit.” Br. 5. In particular, Appellants contend
Suzuki uses only inner power-receiving coil 4 for wireless charging, not the
combination of inner power-receiving coil 4 and outer NFC antenna coil 3.
Id. Also, Appellants attempt to distinguish Suzuki by asserting that Suzuki’s
outer NFC antenna coil 3 differs from “the instant application” where “the
inner antenna structure is designed to process” NFC signals. Id. Appellants
further assert that Suzuki’s inner power-receiving coil 4 and outer NFC
5
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
antenna coil 3 are “two distinct elements” rather than inner and outer
antenna structures “coupled” together according to claim 1. Id. at 6. In
addition, Appellants argue: (1) Finn does not teach inner and outer antenna
structures “separated by a distance D” or combined use for wireless
charging; and (2) Baarman does not teach any of claim 1 ’s limitations. Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually where a rejection rests on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, Appellants’
attempt to distinguish Suzuki from “the instant application” based on outer
NFC antenna coil 3 fails because, as the Examiner notes, claim 1 does not
specify whether the “inner antenna structure” or the “outer antenna
structure” processes NFC signals. See Ans. 15; Br. 9 (Claims App.).
“[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner relies
on the combination of disclosures in the references for teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitations in claim 1. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 15-16.
As the Examiner explains, the “rejection is based on the obviousness to
combine the relevant features” in the references. Ans. 15.
Further, the Examiner finds: (1) Finn discloses “RFID antenna
modules and coupling” using a “jumper” between inner and outer antenna
structures and “their combination is designed for power charging”; and
(2) Suzuki discloses “an apparatus comprising a single antenna” with inner
and outer antenna structures “separated by a distance D.” Ans. 15-16; see
6
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
Final Act. 5-6; Adv. Act. 2; see also Finn 6-7, 90-95, Fig. 2C; Suzuki
HU 2, 10-11, 13, 27-29, 36^13, 56, Figs. 1A, 4A-4C, 5A-5C, 7A. In
addition, Baarman discloses “a single antenna” with a combination of coils
designed for power charging. Baarman HU 55-57, 60-63, Fig. 3; see
Ans. 13-14. When transmitting power wirelessly between power supply
302 and remote/portable device 304, a switch (SW7) in power supply 302
couples primary coil 336 to communication coil 338 electrically in series,
while a switch (SW3) in remote/portable device 304 couples secondary coil
346 to communication coil 348 electrically in series. Baarman HU 55-57,
60-63, Fig. 3 ; see Ans. 13-14; see also Baarman Fig. 4 (coil 446,
switch SW4, and coil 448).
Consequently, in agreement with the Examiner, we find the
combination of disclosures in Suzuki, Finn, and Baarman teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations in claim 1. Hence, we sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 1.
Independent Claim 10
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 because
Suzuki, Finn, and Baarman do not “in combination or individually teach an
inner antenna structure coupled to the outer antenna structure, and the outer
antenna structure and the inner antenna structure are separated by a distance
D to reduce an effective inductance offered to the NFC transceiver block.”
Br. 7. More specifically, Appellants assert that Suzuki’s inner power­
receiving coil 4 and outer NFC antenna coil 3 are “two distinct elements”
rather than inner and outer antenna structures “coupled” together according
to claim 10. Id. In addition, Appellants argue: (1) Finn does not teach a
7
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
“wireless charging unit” or an “NFC transceiver block”; and (2) Baarman
does not teach any of claim 10’s “antenna arrangement” limitations. Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as explained above, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by
attacking the references individually where a rejection rests on a
combination of references. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Here, the
Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in the references for
teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations in claim 10. Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 17-18.
As discussed above for claim 1, the Examiner finds: (1) Finn discloses
“RFID antenna modules and coupling” using a “jumper” between inner and
outer antenna structures; and (2) Suzuki discloses “an apparatus comprising
a single antenna” with inner and outer antenna structures “separated by a
distance D.” Ans. 15-17; see Final Act. 5-6, 9-10; Adv. Act. 2; see also
Finn 6-7, 90-95, Fig. 2C; Suzuki 2, 10-11,13, 27-29, 36-43, 56,
Figs. 1A, 4A-4C, 5A-5C, 7A. For claim 10, the Examiner finds that Suzuki
also discloses “crafting design elements of antenna[] size, placement and
windings in order to reduce an effective inductance.” Ans. 17 (citing Suzuki
41); see Final Act. 9 (citing Suzuki ^ 38).
Consequently, in agreement with the Examiner, we find the
combination of disclosures in Suzuki, Finn, and Baarman teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations in claim 10. Hence, we sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 10.
Dependent Claims 2,3,5-9,11-13,15, and 17
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for dependent claims
2, 3, 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 17. Br. 5-7. Because Appellants do not argue the
8
Appeal 2017-008435
Application 14/043,516
claims separately, we sustain the § 103 rejection of these dependent claims
for the same reasons as the related independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-17.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9