Lei Zhao et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

14337212 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

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.
14/337,212 07/21/2014 LEI ZHAO 113585-1516 1244
141748 7590 12/19/2019
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
TRISCHLER, JOHN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEI ZHAO, JIA WEI, and JOHN S. KLEINE
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON FENICK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2.2

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intersil Americas
LLC. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed August 17, 2017) 2.
2 This Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.,” filed January 24, 2018), the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed February 9, 2017) and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 27,
2017), and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed November 7, 2016).
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

2
An oral hearing for this appeal was held September 9, 2019. The transcript
is available in the record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a battery charge system with transition
control that protects components when transitioning from battery mode to
adapter mode, by using a boost converter to ramp the system voltage from
the battery voltage to the adapter voltage. Spec. ¶¶ 12, 24, 25, 27, Title,
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1 (Original) A battery charge system, comprising:
an adapter node and a system node;
a battery;
a first isolation switch coupled between said
adapter node and said system node;
a second isolation switch coupled between said
battery and said system node;
a boost converter operative to boost a battery
voltage of said battery to increase a system voltage on said
system node when activated; and
a controller that turns off said first isolation switch
and that turns on said second isolation switch during a battery
mode, that activates said boost converter when an adapter
voltage is detected on said adapter node, that turns off said
second isolation switch when said system voltage rises above
said battery voltage, and that turns on said first isolation switch
when said system voltage rises to a predetermined operating
voltage level.
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Nagai et al. (“Nagai”) US 6,057,609 May 2, 2000
Bajaj et al. (“Bajaj”) US 2014/0070618 A1 Mar. 13, 2014
Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 9,225,202 B1 Dec. 29, 2015

REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–4, 7, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Nagai. Final Act. 8–14.
Claims 8–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nagai and Bajaj. Final Act. 15–22.
Claims 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nagai and Kim. Final Act. 23.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Nagai, Bajaj, and Kim. Final Act. 23–24.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

3 The Final Action includes a 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) written description
rejection of claim 22; however claim 22 was withdrawn and is not a subject
of this appeal. See Final Action 5–7; Answer 2; Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

4
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Determinations and Arguments
The Examiner finds that Nagai discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1, including the “controller that turns off said first isolation switch and
that turns on said second isolation switch during a battery mode, that
activates said boost converter when an adapter voltage is detected on said
adapter node, that turns off said second isolation switch when said system
voltage rises above said battery voltage, and that turns on said first isolation
switch when said system voltage rises to a predetermined operating voltage
level.” Final Act. 8–10.
Nagai discloses an auxiliary power supply for supplying electric
power to electric appliances during an interruption of a commercial AC
power supply. Nagai 1:4–13, 2:9–28. If a power interruption of the
commercial AC power supply occurs, a power from a battery (cell) is
provided to the appliances via a DC-to-DC converter. Id. at 2:29–59, 5:55–
56. Nagai’s Figure 8, reproduced below, is a “flow chart for describing” a
“load judging/power-supply switching process operation.” Nagai 4:65–66.
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

5

Step 113 shown in Nagai’s Figure 8 is a check to determine whether
the terminal voltage across a capacitor is lower than or equal to a preselected
value, which would indicate that the supply of electric power from a
commercial AC power supply is not interrupted. Id. 7:64–8:5, 8:18–22. If
the AC power supply is not interrupted, then the spare DC/DC converter is
brought to a rest state, the power supply is connected to the AC side, and an
indication is supplied of this situation. Id. 8:1–17, Fig. 8 (elements 114,
115, 116). If the voltage being supplied across the capacitor indicates that
the AC power supply is in a power interrupt state, then power from the
battery (cell) and the DC/DC converter is used, and an indication is supplied
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

6
that cell-side power is being used. Id. 8:18–32, Fig. 8 (elements 117, 118,
119). “Then, when the power interruption [of the AC power supply] is
recovered, the process operation is returned to . . . steps 112, 113, and 114 to
116.” Id. 8:33–35.
The Examiner finds that the claim limitations that the controller “turns
off said first isolation switch and turns on said second isolation switch
during a battery mode” and “activates said boost converter” are disclosed by
Nagai’s steps 117 and 118. Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that
step 115 of Nagai’s Figure 8 discloses the claimed controller “turns off said
second isolation switch when said system voltage rises above said battery
voltage, and turns on said first isolation switch when said system voltage
rises to a predetermined operating voltage level.” Id. at 8–9.
In Nagai, the boost converter is activated if the adapter voltage is not
detected, that is, when the adapter “is brought into the power interrupt state.”
Nagai 8:19–22. In contrast, claim 1 requires that the boost converter be
activated when an adapter voltage is detected on the adapter node. The
Examiner addresses this apparent discrepancy between Nagai’s disclosure
and claim 1’s express language in the finding that Nagai Figure 8 “describes
a cyclical, repeating pattern” in which the evaluation of decision diamond
113 would occur multiple times and may result in different results, and that
“if the voltage is detected in step 113 to be above, and then later it is
detected to be at or below the value, then the DC/DC converter is still turned
on after the detection of the adapter voltage being above the value.” Final
Act. 9; Ans. 4.
Restated, the Examiner determines that the claim limitation of
“activates a boost converter when an adapter voltage is detected on said
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

7
adapter node” (claim 1, emphasis added) should mean that the activation
occurs at some point after the adapter voltage is detected. Final Act. 9; Ans.
3–5. Therefore, the Examiner finds, in Nagai, it is possible for the decision
diamond 113 to first determine that the adapter voltage is detected, and then,
subsequently, determine that the adapter voltage is not detected (no power or
power lower than a threshold value detected in step 113), at which point the
boost converter would be activated in step 117, thus disclosing “activates
said boost converter when an adapter voltage is detected on said adapter
node”. Final Act. 9, Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner also finds that, in the alternative, the decision
diamond 113 in Nagai’s Figure 8 will initiate the spare DC/DC converter if
some voltage has been detected but that detected voltage is lower than a
threshold (Nagai’s predetermined value). In such situations, the Examiner
finds, Nagai discloses the initiation of the spare DC/DC converter “when an
adapter voltage is detected.” Final Action 10; Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that Nagai does not disclose that the DC/DC
converter is initiated “when an adapter voltage is detected on said adapter
node,” but rather that it is activated when adapter power is interrupted.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that the proper interpretation of the claim
limitation requires that “when” not be interpreted as broadly meaning at
“any time in the future” but more narrowly. Reply Br. 2. Additionally,
Appellant argues that element 113 of Nagai concerns a determination of
whether AC power from the AC adapter is present or absent, and no
indication appears in Nagai regarding that an adapter voltage might be
present, but that the battery be connected. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

8
Analysis
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive.
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
specification, of “activates said boost converter when an adapter voltage is
detected on said adapter node” is not broad enough to encompass activation
at any point in time after that detection, thereby even including a situation,
as in Nagai, in which time has passed and in the interim an opposite
condition has been detected, triggering an opposite action on the boost
converter. We agree with the Examiner that the claim does not limit the
steps performed by the controller to those listed without intervening steps,
nor even that, as written, the steps must occur in the order in which they
appear in the claim. See Final Act. 9. However, the controller is not
claimed to activate a boost converter and, separately, to detect an adapter
voltage on an adapter node. The controller is claimed to “activate said boost
converter when an adapter voltage is detected on said adapter node.”
In Nagai, at best, the boost converter is activated when an adapter
voltage is no longer detected on the adapter node, subsequent to an adapter
voltage having at some point previously been detected on the adapter node.
Nagai provides a flow chart, which shows specifically that the activation of
the boost converter occurs when an adapter voltage is not detected, and that
the boost converter is interrupted when voltage is not detected. We do not
agree, therefore, that the cited portions of Nagai disclose the claim
limitation.
We additionally disagree with the Examiner’s determination that,
because the measurement of voltage in element 113 allows for a voltage
lower than a predetermined value to be present and still trigger the initiation
Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

9
of the spare DC/DC converter in step 117, Nagai discloses the claim
limitation. We note that Nagai’s flow chart decision element 113 concerns a
measurement of terminal voltage of a capacitor C8. See Nagai 5:61–63,
7:62–64, 8:1–5. This is not the same as the claimed “adapter voltage on said
adapter node.”
The voltage at this “smoothing capacitor” does not directly
correspond to the voltage at the adapter node, as in the claim. The presence
of some voltage at the capacitor lower than the predetermined voltage is
described in Nagai as indicating “the commercial AC power supply is
brought into the power interrupt state.” Nagai 8:18–21. Thus, the cited
portion of Nagai cannot be said to disclose the activation of the boost
converter “when an adapter voltage is detected on said adapter node” in the
disclosure of initiating the converter when describing a measurement on a
smoothing capacitor that indicates the adapter voltage is in an interrupt state.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Independent claims 11 and 18 include similar limitations
and are rejected on the same basis by the Examiner, and the rejections of
dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or
35 U.S.C. § 103 similarly are based on the findings made in the rejection of
claim 1, and, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of these
claims.

Appeal 2018-002870
Application 14/337,212

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are REVERSED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 18,
20, 21
102 Nagai 1–4, 7, 18,
20, 21
8–16 103 Nagai and Bajaj 8–16
5, 6, 19 103 Nagai and Kim 5, 6, 19
17 103 Nagai, Bajaj, and
Kim
17
Overall
Outcome:
  1–21

REVERSED