Sagar C. Pawar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 6, 2019

14725586 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 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.
14/725,586 05/29/2015 Sagar C. Pawar P83625 1490
104333 7590 08/06/2019
International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C.
13231 Champion Forest Drive
Suite 410
Houston, TX 77069
EXAMINER
ROBBINS, JERRY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2859
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2019 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):
Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAGAR C. PAWAR and PRAKASH PILLAI
____________

Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 5–12, 15–22, 24, and 25 of
Application 14/725,586 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. (Aug. 11, 2017)
2–21. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.

1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Intel Corporation, which is also identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

2
BACKGROUND
The present Application generally relates to a method and apparatus
for wireless charging. Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the Application relates to
“providing power to a discharged battery in wireless power systems.” Id.
A wireless power transmitter may include a transmit (Tx) coil, and a
wireless power receiver may include receive (Rx) coil. Id. ¶ 14. In cases
where the battery of the wireless power receiver is fully discharged, a
wireless handshake between a transmitter and a receiver may be impossible.
Id.
The Specification teaches a method where, when the battery of the
device to be charged is fully discharged, the transmitter is configured to
initiate a protocol where low power is provided to the wireless power
receiver (such as a mobile device; “WPR”). Id. ¶ 22. The power level is
intended to be low enough “to prevent harm to the WPR 104 before wireless
charging handshake and configuration is performed.” Id.
In this low power scenario, the voltage received at the receive coil
passes through a rectifier and a direct current (DC to DC) converter and then
to a controller. Id. ¶ 20. “The controller 120 may be used to initiate
wireless broadcast signals, such as a wireless handshake.” Id. The wireless
handshake may be carried out by a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) module.
Id. In addition, the receiver is “configured to provide power received at the
WPR 104 at a first power level to a battery 114 that is initially fully
discharged.” Id. ¶ 19.
Once the power level of the battery is detected to be at or above a
certain threshold, the controller 120 may close gate 204 which permits the
voltage rail to power the wireless communication circuitry and open gate
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

3
206 which permits operation of the device based on available battery power.
Id. ¶ 25.
Figure 2 of the Drawings is reproduced below.

Figure 2 “illustrates a block diagram for addressing a dead battery scenario
at a wireless power receiver.” Id. ¶ 4. Figure 2 shows wireless power
receiver (WPR) 104 including coil 108, rectifier 116, converter 118, power
logic 112, and gates 204 and 206. Id. ¶ 24.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A wireless power receiver, comprising:
a battery;
a receiving coil configured to inductively couple to a
transmitting coil;
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

4
a rectifier to receive Alternating Current (AC) power from the
receiving coil and output a DC voltage to a voltage rail,
wherein power received at the wireless power receiver is
transmitted at a first power level if the battery is initially
fully discharged, wherein the power of the first power
level is received during a predefined interval of a fully
discharged battery protocol;
logic circuitry to monitor a second power level available at the
battery; and
wireless communication circuitry to initiate a wireless
handshake with the wireless power transmitter to indicate
configurations of the wireless power receiver;
wherein the logic circuitry is to:
couple the voltage rail to the wireless communication circuitry
if the second power level available at the battery is below
a predefined threshold; and
couple an output of the battery to the wireless communication
circuitry if the second power level available at the battery
is above the predefined threshold.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Maugars2 in view of Jung.3 Final
Act. 2–15.

2 US 2011/0136550 A1, published June 9, 2011.
3 US 7,948,209 B2, issued May 24, 2011.
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

5
2. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Zaliva.4 Id. at 15–
16.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Lee.5 Id. at 16–17.
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Takahashi.6 Id. at
17.
5. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Zaliva. Id. at
18–19.
6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Lee. Id. at 19.
7. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Maugars
in view of Jung and further in view of Takahashi. Id. at 19–20.
8. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Maugars in view of Jung and further in view of Zaliva. Id. at 20–
21.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18,
21, 22, and 24 as obvious over Maugars in view of Jung. Final Act. 2–15.
Appellant argues that the references do not teach each claim element of

4 US 8,797,288 B2, issued Aug. 5, 2014.
5 US 2016/0245873 A1, published Aug. 25, 2016.
6 US 2014/0312708 A1, published Oct. 23, 2014.
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

6
claim 1 and that “[i]ndependent claims 11 and 21 recite similar subject
matter.” Appeal Br. 9. The remaining claims depend from claims 1, 11, and
21. Accordingly, each claim subject to the first rejection will stand or fall
with claim 1.
In support of this rejection, the Examiner finds that Maugars teaches
all elements of claim 1 other than “a rectifier to receive Alternating Current
(AC) power from the receiving coil and output a DC voltage to a voltage
rail.” Final Act. 5.
Maugars teaches a method of wirelessly charging a mobile device.
Maugars ¶ 10. The mobile device of Maugars includes an RFID (radio
frequency identification) tag. Id. ¶ 23. Maugars teaches that, if the battery
of the device is fully discharged and the RFID tag lacks “dead battery
instructions,” then the transmitter “applies the wireless charge to the mobile
device 104 at less than the maximum charge level specified in the RFID
data.” Id. ¶ 66.
Figure 4 of Maugars is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

7
Figure 4 of Maugars is a block diagram of mobile device 104 that includes
RFID tag 130, power (receiving) coil 132, NFC (near field communication)
circuit 134, processor 136, and battery 140. Id. ¶ 46.
The Examiner finds that Figure 6 of Maugars teaches to “couple the
voltage rail to the wireless communication circuitry if the second power
level available at the battery is below a predefined threshold” as required by
claim 1. Final Act. 4–5; Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Figure 6 of Maugars
is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

8
Figure 6 of Maugars is a flow chart showing a method for charging a mobile
device when the battery of the mobile device is fully discharged. Maugars
¶ 63. More specifically, the Examiner finds as follows:
When the battery level is below a level {dead battery} that can
power the NFC circuitry, Step 306-NO, the communication
relies on the information communicated via the RFID circuitry,
Step 310, and either charges at a level less than the maximum
charge level, Step 312, or charges according to the instructions
received from the RFID circuitry, Step 314. Obviously some
type of logic circuitry is required to make the determination of
communicating via the RFID or the NFC).

Final Act. 5; see also Answer 8.
Appellant argues that Maugars fails to teach circuitry to “couple the
voltage rail to the wireless communication circuitry if the second power
level available at the battery is below a predefined threshold” and to “couple
an output of the battery to the wireless communication circuitry if the second
power level available at the battery is above the predefined threshold.”
Appeal Br. 8–10.
Appellant argues that, “[r]ather than coupling the NFC circuitry to the
voltage rail to receive power directly from the charging coil, as generally
recited in the present claims, Maugars describes a technique in which the
charging pad is able to read data from the mobile device’s RFID tag when
NFC communications are not possible.” Id. at 9.
In the Answer, the Examiner construes “wireless communication
circuitry” broadly to include both the NFC communication circuitry and the
RFID circuitry of Maugars. Answer 4. The Examiner finds that “Maugars
uses the RFID communication circuitry when the battery of the device to be
charged is fully discharged to receive charging power from the power
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

9
transmitter, then uses the NFC communication circuitry when the battery
level is sufficient in order to communicate with the power transmitter.” Id.
at 5 (internal citations omitted).
Thus, the Examiner finds that claim 1’s requirement to “couple the
voltage rail to the wireless communication circuitry” when the battery level
is low is met by the RFID circuitry of Maugars and the claim’s requirement
to “couple an output of the battery to the wireless communication circuitry”
when the battery level is sufficiently charged is met by the battery powering
the NFC circuitry.
In its Reply, Appellant argues that by reciting “the wireless
communication circuitry” the claim makes clear that it is referring to the
same circuitry in each claim element. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that,
“[i]n other words, the wireless communication circuitry [of the claim] is the
same, and the thing that changes based on the battery level is the manner in
which the wireless communication circuitry is powered.” Id. Further,
Appellant argues that even if the NFC and RFID circuitry are both
considered to be part of the wireless communication circuitry, “Maugars
does not describe any technique whereby the NFC and RFID circuitry are
collectively being coupled to a voltage rail or a battery based on the battery
levels.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Jung teaches a voltage rail. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner does not expressly find that either reference (or their
combined teachings) discloses a voltage rail that is coupled to the NFC or
RFID circuitry of Maugars. The Examiner finds that one of skill in the art
would have chosen some method of rectification (such as that taught by
Jung) “since the transfer of wireless energy must be in AC and the battery
Appeal 2018-007933
Application 14/725,586

10
must be charged in DC.” Id. That is, the Examiner finds that the voltage rail
would have been connected to the battery of Maugars. Thus, Appellant is
correct that the Examiner has not shown how the RFID circuitry or NFC
circuitry (separately or collectively) are coupled to the voltage rail.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings that the cited references teach “logic circuitry [to] . . . couple the
voltage rail to the wireless communication circuitry.” As a result, the
rejection of claim 1 is reversed. Because Appellant asserts error in the
rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 24 on the same basis as
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9, 11), the rejection of these claims is likewise reversed.

Rejections 2–8. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19,
20, and 25 as obvious over Maugars, Jung, and certain additional references.
Final Act. 15–21. Appellant relies upon the same arguments in support of its
appeal of these rejections as with regard to Rejection 1. Appeal Br. 11–14.
As we have found such arguments to be, at least in part, persuasive, we
similarly reverse the rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 25.

CONCLUSION
The rejections of all claims as obvious are reversed.

REVERSED