Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2020

2019003099 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2020)

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.
15/521,994 04/26/2017 Robert C Brooks 84616174 1078
22879 7590 09/22/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
FERGUSON, KEITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2020 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ROBERT C. BROOKS, ROBIN T. CASTELL,
MONJI G. JABORI, HAROLD MERKEL,
LEE ATKINSON, and CHARLES J. STANCIL
_____________

Appeal 2019-0030991
Application 15/521,994
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–13. Appeal Br. 7. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

2

Invention
The invention is directed to a method for wireless charge transfer. See
Abstract. Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent. Illustrative Claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
sensing a wireless charging station comprising a wireless
charging transmitter and determining a status for a machine
based at least in part on the sensing of the wireless charging
station, wherein sensing the wireless charging station comprises
detecting the wireless charging transmitter of the wireless
charging station; and
assisting a process to wirelessly transfer power to the
machine, wherein assisting comprises causing the machine to
provide guidance to a user of the machine based at least in part
on the determined status, wherein assisting the user of the
machine with a process to wirelessly transfer power to the
machine comprises at least one of the following:
using the machine to provide an indication of a
compatibility of a wireless charging standard used by the
machine relative to a wireless charging standard used by the
wireless charging station;
using the machine to provide an indication of a
compatibility of a wireless charging transmitter of the wireless
charging station to a wireless charging receiver of the machine,
wherein the wireless charging receiver to wirelessly receive
power for the machine to charge a battery of the machine or
power a function of the machine; and
using the machine to determine and display a status
representing a degree to which the machine may be used while
being wirelessly charged.

Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

3

Prior Art
Name2 Reference Date
Baarman US 2011/0018360 A1 Jan. 27. 2011
Partovi US 2012/0146576 A1 June 14, 2012
You US 2013/0310112 A1 Nov. 21, 2013

Rejections at Issue3, 4
1. Claims 1, 3, and 5–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by You. Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over You and
Partovi.5 Final Act. 6–7.
3. Claims 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over You and
Baarman. Final Act. 7–8.

Allowable Subject Matter

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
3 The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 17,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed March 8, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 11, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed April
26, 2017 (“Spec.”).
5 The Examiner’s rejection recites “Parotic” instead of “Partovi.” We
consider this harmless error. Our Opinion recites the inventors name as filed
“Partovi.”
Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

4

Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but the Examiner found it would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections.

CLAIMS 1, 3, AND 5–10: ANTICIPATION BY YOU
Independent Claims 1 and 5
Transmitter—Receiver Compatibility

Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “using the machine to provide an indication
of a compatibility of a wireless charging transmitter of the wireless charging
station to a wireless charging receiver of the machine.” Claim 5 recites
commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds You discloses this limitation as where “a
numerical value of the electromagnetic waves is equal to or greater than a
reference numeral values, an icon notifying that it is harmful to the user may
be displayed, e.g., ‘BAD.’” Final Act. 3 (citing You ¶¶ 87–94, 131–34).
Appellant contends You fails to disclose an indication of a
compatibility of a wireless charging transmitter to a wireless charging
receiver and further fails to disclose using a machine to provide such an
indication. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that “[t]he mere strength of a
received electromagnetic wave does not represent or indicate the
Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

5

compatibility of a wireless charging transmitter to a wireless charging
receiver.” Id.
The Answer merely reproduces the Final Action finding. See Final
Act. 9. Appellant contends the cited disclosure is not found in the indicated
passages of You. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues You discloses that when
the electromagnetic waves may be harmful to a person, an indication may be
displayed, but that being harmful to a human is not the same as harmful to a
device. Id.
We agree with Appellant. We find no disclosure in the cited portions
of You of using the machine to provide an indication of a compatibility of a
wireless charging transmitter to a wireless charging receiver, as claimed.
See You, ¶¶ 87–94, 131–134 (cited generally by the Examiner). You
discloses the electromagnetic waves may be harmful to a human: “when the
numerical value of the electromagnetic waves is equal to or greater than a
reference numerical value, an icon notifying that it is harmful to the user
may be displayed thereon.” You, ¶ 133 (cited generally by the Examiner).
Whether the electromagnetic waves are harmful to humans is not relevant to
whether the transmitter and receiver are compatible.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 5 and further of dependent claims 3, and 6–10
dependent therefrom.
CLAIM 2: OBVIOUSNESS OVER YOU AND PARTOVI.
Appellant contends claim 2 is patentable for at least the reasons
discussed above. Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

6

The Examiner does not cite Partovi in connection with the limitation
argued above. See Ans. 11. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain
the rejection of claim 2.
CLAIMS 11–13: OBVIOUSNESS OVER YOU AND BAARMAN
Claim 11

Independent claim 11 does not contain recitations relating to the
compatibility of the transmitter and receiver that are commensurate with the
recitations of independent claims 1 and 5. See Appeal Br. 18, 20, Claims
App.
Claim 11 recites, inter alia:
a controller to: wirelessly communicate with a wireless
charging station on which a portable electronic device is
disposed, the portable electronic device being physically
separated from the apparatus; and based on the wireless
communication, determine and indicate a wireless power
transfer status of the portable electronic device to a user of the
apparatus.
See Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.
Appellant contends You fails to teach a mobile terminal wirelessly
communicating with a wireless charging station for purposes of determining
and indicating a wire power transfer status of a portable electronic device
that is physically separated from the mobile terminal. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant further contends Baarman fails to teach that one of the electronic
devices determines, or indicates, a wireless power transfer status of the other
electronic device. Id.
The Examiner finds You does not disclose a charging station on
which a portable electronic device is disposed, the portable electronic device
being physically separated from the apparatus. Ans. 12. However, the
Appeal 2019-003039
Application 15/521,994

7

Examiner supplements You by finding Baarman teaches multiple separate
portable devices disposed on a power transmitter physical separated from the
other portable device. Id.
The Answer does not address Appellant’s contention that the You-
Baarman combination fails to teach where a first electronic device
determines, or indicates, a wireless power transfer status of a second
electronic device.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims
1–13.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–10 102 You 1, 3, 5–10
2 103 You, Partovi 2
11–13 103 You, Baarman 11–13
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–13

REVERSED