Ex Parte YEO et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201814162340 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/162,340 01/23/2014 66547 7590 08/02/2018 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 2IOE Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sung-Ku YEO 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 678-4920 (P20421) 7356 EXAMINER PARIHAR, SUCHIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2851 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2018 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUNG-KU YEO, SONG-CHEOL HONG, DUK-JU AHN, GWANG-HYEON JEONG, SE-HO PARK, and MIN-CHEOL HA Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 23, 2014; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated March 2, 2016; Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed September 26, 2016; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated January 13, 2017; and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 9, 2017. 2 Appellants are Applicants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to wireless electric power transmitters. Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative: 1. A wireless electric power transmitter for transmitting electric power for charging a wireless electric power receiver, the wireless electric power transmitter compnsmg: an electric power supply unit which supplies electric power; an amplifier which amplifies and outputs the electric power supplied from the electric power supply unit such that the amplified electric power increases as a magnitude of impedance increases; and a transmitter which transmits the amplified electric power for charging the wireless electric power receiver. 10. A class D type amplifier, comprising: an RF choke device which is supplied with electric power from an electric power supply unit; a first node which is connected to one end of the RF choke device; a second node which is connected to another end of the RF choke device; a load resistor; a capacitor having one end connected to the first node and another end connected to the second node and one end of the load resistor; and a coil having one end connected to the first node and another end connected to the load resistor. App. Br. 8, 10 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 11 is similar to claim 10 and requires a second coil. Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1, 10, or 11. 2 Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 REJECTION Claims 1-3 and 6-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated by Wambsganss. 3 OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... "). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds that Wambsganss describes a wireless electric power transmitter that includes each feature recited in Appellants' claims. Final Act. 3-8. Claim 1 With regard to claim 1, Appellants argue that Wambsganss' s disclosure in Figure 6 is insufficient to support the Examiner's finding that the described wireless transmitter includes an amplifier that outputs amplified electric power that increases as a magnitude of impedance increases. App. Br. 3-5. Particularly, Appellants reproduce Figures la, 1 b, 3 US 2013/0088088 Al, published April 11, 2013 ("Wambsganss"). 3 Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 and 6 of Wambsganss, and contend that the relationship depicted in Figure 6 regards VL-the voltage at a load RL-rather than V1, which Appellants contend is the voltage outputted from the class-D amplifier. App. Br. 4. Appellants argue that Wambsganss' s Figure 6, therefore, fails to show a relationship between RL and V 1 and, correspondingly, fails to demonstrate the claimed functionality that "the amplified electric power increases as a magnitude of impedance increases." Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants do not present persuasive evidence that the voltage V L at a load RL would not have been indicative of the power outputted from Wambsganss's amplified wireless transmitter. Nor do Appellants present evidence or argument that Wambsganss's device would have been incapable of providing the recited power/impedance relationship. Rather, Appellants' explain in the Specification that the recited power/impedance relationship is accomplished by providing the capacitor, coil, and load resistor of the amplifier in series (Spec. 10-11). The Examiner's finding that Wambsganss also describes these components in series (Ans. 3) is consistent with Wambsganss's Figure la (reproduced by Appellants, App. Br. 4), which depicts C1, r1, I1, and L1 in series. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's finding that Wambsganss describes a wireless power transmitter in which the amplified power increases as a magnitude of impedance increases. Accordingly, the Rejection as applied to claim 1 is sustained. 4 Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 Claims 2, 3, and 6-11 Appellants do not present any separate argument regarding claims 2, 3, and 6-11, and rely solely on the arguments presented in connection with claim 1. 4 App. Br. 5, 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Rejection as applied to these claims for the reasons set forth above. Claims 12, 13, and 14 Appellants present arguments regarding claims 12-14 under a separate heading, but particularly address only claim 12. Claim 12 requires that the coil and load resistor of the amplifier are connected in series. As noted, the Examiner finds the recited arrangement in Wambsganss, e.g., at Figure 1 a. Ans. 3. Appellants do not dispute that the coil and load resistor depicted in Wambsganss' s Figure 1 a are connected in series. Rather, Appellants contend that the coil L1 and resistor r1 in Wambsganss are "outside of the class-D Amplifier." App. Br. 6. However, Appellants 4 Appellants newly argue in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not shown where Wambsganss' s depicted circuits include a coil having one end connected to a node and another end connected to a load resistor. Reply Br. 2. Appellants have not shown good cause explaining why these arguments were not raised in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, these arguments have been waived and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BP AI 2010) ( explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause."). 5 Appeal2017-006318 Application 14/162,340 present neither credible evidence nor technical reasoning to support their contention. As such, we find it unpersuasive of reversible error. Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Accordingly, the Rejection as applied to claims 12, 13, and 14 also is sustained. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-14 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation