UTC Fire & Security Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2021

2021001961 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2021)

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.
15/517,748 04/07/2017 Christopher C. Fuller 76912US02
[1511607.124-9]
1042
61654 7590 12/23/2021
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
KESSIE, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2021 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):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER C. FULLER and EDWARD GOFF
Appeal 2021-001961
Application 15/517,748
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as UTC Fire & Security
Corporation (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2021-001961
Application 15/517,748

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device for providing wireless power
transfer. Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
10. A device for providing wireless power transfer, comprising:
a primary antenna having a first lens surrounding a first end
portion thereof and a second lens surrounding a second end
portion thereof.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Stecher US 2012/0274147 A1 Nov. 1, 2012
Ichikawa US 2015/0028687 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
REJECTION
Claims 10–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Stecher in
view of Ichikawa.
OPINION
We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 10.
The Appellant’s Figure 2 is reproduced as follows:

The figure is the Appellant’s Figure 2 showing a primary
antenna (120) having a first lens (124a) surrounding a
first end portion thereof (122a) and a second lens (124b)
surrounding a second end portion thereof (122b)
Appeal 2021-001961
Application 15/517,748

3

The Appellant’s Specification states (Spec. 7):
The lenses 124a, 124b are comprised of an array of
resonators. . . . Since a significant portion of the near-field
energy appears at the first and second end portions (i.e., the
mouths) 122a, 122b of the antenna 120, the lenses 124a, 124b
reduce the amount of electromagnetic energy from the antenna
120 from closing/self-cancelling immediately at the two mouths
of the antenna 120. The lenses 124a, 124b positioned at the end
portions 122a, 122b of the antenna 120 have a tighter tolerance
than a lens distributed over the entirety of the antenna 120. For
the configuration shown in Fig. 2, a substantial portion of the
antenna 120 is not controlled by either lens 124a, 124b.
Therefore, the electromagnetic fields in the uncontrolled region
are directed towards one mouth of the antenna 120 on the inside
of the antenna 120 and the other mouth of antenna 120 on the
outside of antenna 120.

Stecher discloses a wireless transmission near-field lens and antenna
device (102) comprising an antenna (34) surrounded by a lens (26) formed
of a plurality of sub-wavelength sized elements (28) (¶¶ 56, 61; Figs. 5–7).
“By surrounding the antenna with sub-wavelength sized elements, the near-
field is captured close in to the antenna so that the near-field can be
controlled and shaped immediately after it is generated by a loop” (¶ 61).
Ichikawa transfers power wirelessly from a power transmitting
device (41) to a power receiving device (40) (¶ 97; Fig. 6). The power
transmitting device (41) comprises an electromagnetic induction coil (23)
connected to a power supply (P), and a resonance coil (24) within and not in
contact with an electrically conductive tubular member (240) that shields the
resonance coil (24) except where the tubular member (240) has one or more
clearances (C) at which the magnetic field (H) around the resonance
coil (24) radiates outside the tubular member (240) to provide
Appeal 2021-001961
Application 15/517,748

4
electromagnetic induction between the electromagnetic induction coil (23)
and the resonance coil (24) (¶¶ 92–94, 97, 105–107; Figs. 6, 9).
The Examiner finds that “Stecher is capable of using multiple lens
disclosed by Ichikawa and provided a motivation why one of the ordinary
skill in the art would rely on a multiply lens design in wireless power
transmission” (Ans. 4), and concludes that “it would have been obvious to
one of the ordinary in the art at the filing of the invention to have located a
lens on the first and second end portion of the antenna motivated by the
desire to electrically cut off current flow through the tubular member at the
end portion” (Final 3).
“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Examiner does not establish that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellant’s claim term “lens”
consistent with the Specification encompasses Ichikawa’s electrically
conductive tubular member (240).
Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing
that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art
with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed
invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The
Examiner does not establish that Ichikawa’s disclosure of clearances (C) in
tubular member (240) that electrically cut it off such that current does not
flow through it annularly (¶ 93) would have provided one of ordinary skill in
the art with an apparent reason to surround Stecher’s antenna (34)’s first end
portion with a first lens and second end portion with a second lens.
Appeal 2021-001961
Application 15/517,748

5
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis that is sufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed device. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art”). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10–16 103 Stecher, Ichikawa 10–16
REVERSED