Zhang Jin et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 18, 2019

14737611 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 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.
14/737,611 06/12/2015 Zhang JIN 152160US 4991
15055 7590 07/18/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BAISA, JOSELITO SASIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2837
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2019 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHANG JIN, YUNG-CHUNG LO, YOUNGCHANG YOON,
NING YUAN, and APSARA RAVISH SUVARNA1
____________

Appeal 2018-007547
Application 14/737,611
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1–29 as unpatentable over
Swirhun (US 2014/0225698 A1, pub. Aug. 14, 2014) in view of Watanabe
(US 2005/0051869 A1, pub. Mar. 10, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.

1 Appellant is the Applicant, Qualcomm Incorporated, which is identified as
the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-007547
Application 14/737,611
2
We REVERSE.

Appellant claims an apparatus for reducing electromagnetic coupling
between multiple inductive elements comprising an electrical component
having a first inductive element 508 and a ring 510 of electrically conductive
material encircling the first inductive element, wherein the ring has a first
strip 512 of electrically conductive material disposed in the ring and
connecting a first point on the ring to a second point on the ring
(independent claim 1, Fig. 5B). Appellant also claims a corresponding
method of operating an electrical circuit wherein electromagnetic coupling is
reduced via a ring and strip of the type described previously (remaining
independent claim 18).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. An apparatus for reducing electromagnetic coupling between multiple
inductive elements comprising:
an electrical component having a first inductive element; and
a ring of electrically conductive material encircling the first inductive
element, wherein the ring has a first strip of electrically conductive material
disposed in the ring and connecting a first point on the ring to a second point
on the ring.

In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Swirhun discloses an
electrical component having a first inductive element 12, conductors 30
encircling the inductive element, and a first strip connecting a first point on
one conductor 30 to a second point on another conductor 30 (Final Action 3–
Appeal 2018-007547
Application 14/737,611
3
4 (citing Swirhun Fig. 2, ¶ 97)). The Examiner also finds that Swirhun’s
conductors 30 are not in the form of a ring as claimed but that Watanabe
discloses a ring 3 of electrically conductive material encircling an inductive
element 1 (id. at 4 (citing Watanabe Fig. 10, ¶¶ 7–14)). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to use [a] ring of electrically
conductive material encircling an inductive element as taught by Watanabe
to the inductive element of Swirhun to provide a ring that has an opposite
current flow to the inductor to serve as noise protection from surrounding
components” (id.).

Appellant argues that the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion of the claimed ring and strip combination because Swirhun
discloses a strip but not a connected ring and Watanabe discloses a ring but
not a connected strip (App. Br. 7–8). According to Appellant, the Examiner
fails to provide sufficient rationale for combining these references in a
manner satisfying the independent claim limitations (id. at 9–11).

In response, the Examiner finds that Swirhun teaches the effects of
return-path inductance on circuit performance may be significant and states
without embellishment that “having the ring similar to Watanabe combine[d]
with the structure of Swirhun would create a return[-]path inductance . . .
and completes the requirement of the structural limitation of claim 1” (Ans.
7 (emphasis removed)).

The Examiner’s rejection and response do not provide any reason why
an artisan would have connected Swirhun’s strip to first and second points
on a ring of the type taught by Watanabe as required by claim 1. For
Appeal 2018-007547
Application 14/737,611
4
example, the Examiner fails to identify a purpose served by the strip of
Swirhun and correspondingly fails to explain why the purpose would be
facilitated by connecting the strip to a ring. More specifically, the Examiner
does not even assert, much less explain, why a connected strip would be
relevant to the return-path inductance teaching of Swirhun or the noise
protection function of Watanabe’s ring. Additionally, the fact that
Watanabe’s ring is not connected to a strip evinces that a connected strip is
unnecessary to achieve the noise protection function of the ring.

For these reasons, we perceive convincing merit in Appellant’s
argument that “the Examiner has failed to provide an ‘articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” (App. Br. 10 quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006)). We do not sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1–29 as unpatentable over Swirhun in view of Watanabe.

We reverse the Examiner’s decision.

REVERSED