SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020004478 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
16/029,444 07/06/2018 Abdullah AHMED ONS01971C01US 6148
132194 7590 05/26/2021
SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC (AS)
5005 E. McDowell Road
Maildrop A700
Phoenix, AZ 85008
EXAMINER
POOS, JOHN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
ipdocket@iptech.law
patents@onsemi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABDULLAH AHMED and GARETH PRYCE WEALE
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, 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 1–3, 10, 12, and 16. See Non-Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a tunable/de-tunable wireless power
resonator system and related methods. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of wireless power transmission, the method
comprising:
providing a power source coupled with a first wireless
power transmission (WPT) system;
providing a load coupled with a second WPT system; and
detuning a resonance of the second WPT system with the first
WPT system to a desired resonance frequency value to allow
transfer of one of a desired voltage and a desired power to the
load without damaging one of the second WPT system and the
load.

Independent claim 12 is directed to a method similar to that of claim 1
but includes the word “dynamically” before “detuning” (Claims Appendix
25). Independent claim 16 is directed to a system corresponding to the
method of claim 1 (Claims Appendix 27).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kim 1 US 2013/0176653 A1 July 11, 2013
Kim 2 US 2013/0249306 A1 Sept. 26, 2013

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kim 1 in view of Kim 2. Non-Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444

3
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record and each of
Appellant’s contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed December 19,
2019, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellant to
identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the
rejections for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Non-Final Office
Action and the Answer (e.g., Ans. 3–5 (dated April 1st, 2020)). We add the
following for emphasis.
“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee.” Id.
Appellant does not specifically dispute most of the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the teachings of Kim 1 and Kim 2 except for
alleging that Kim 1’s “detuning” does not detune a resonance frequency “to
a desired resonance frequency”, as required in claim 1 (e.g., Appeal Br. 13–
17).
Appellant, however, has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
position that “detuning a resonance …. to a desired resonance frequency” as
recited in claim 1 (as well as claims 12 and 16) is taught by Kim 1’s
description of detuning a resonance frequency in order to reduce reception
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444

4
power and prevent damage to circuitry (e.g., Non-Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–5
(wherein the Examiner effectively explains his interpretation of “desired
resonance frequency” to mean a frequency which both lowers reception
power and prevents damage to the reception device)). This interpretation is
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, wherein Appellant describes
detuning the resonance frequency to accomplish both reducing the voltage
being transmitted as well as prevent damage to the load or components of
the receiving side of the WPT system (e.g. see Spec. ¶ 47–48).
It is appreciated that Appellant’s disclosure describes a particular
embodiment which includes detuning to a desired resonance frequency value
which is less than the maximum resonance frequency value and which
allows operation at a maximum power transfer efficiency (e.g., Spec, ¶ 41).
However, as the Examiner correctly states, the claims do not require the
stated limitation and that the Examiner is not required to import into the
claims limitations that are not part of the claims (Ans. 3-4). Further,
Appellant’s disclosure describes these and other adjustments to parameters
as being non-limiting and provided for example only (e.g., Spec ¶ 47–48).
Appellant then argues that Kim 1 fails to teach the claimed “detuning
…to a desired resonant frequency” because, rather than detuning to a
frequency which allows for maximum power transfer, Kim 1 teaches
detuning away from a frequency which once allowed for maximum power
transfer (Appeal Br. 14–16). But, as explained above, the Examiner points
out that the claims do not require the claimed detuning to include a value
that allows for maximum power transfer. Further, Appellant’s own
disclosure describes detuning as a frequency change which moves the
frequency away from the resonant frequency (e.g., Spec ¶ 47). Analogously,
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444

5
Appellant admits Kim 1’s detuning teaches detuning away from a resonant
frequency (Appeal Br. 16–17). Contrary to Appellant’s contention that Kim
1 fails to teach a desired resonant frequency (Appeal Br. 14–,16), Kim 1
provides a teaching for a detuned frequency which still allows for adequate
power transfer (e.g., see Kim ¶ 56-60).
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
position that the claims encompass the detuning process as taught by Kim 1.
Notably, we do not find—and Appellant has not directed our attention to—
any limiting definitions in the Specification, nor does Appellant provide any
persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s
interpretation of the language of claim 1 is unreasonable.
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 16, as well as all the dependent claims which
were not argued separately. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 1–3, 10, 12, and 16.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2020-004478
Application 16/029,444

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 10, 12,
16
103 Kim 1, Kim 2 1–3, 10, 12,
16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED