Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2021000494 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
15/989,063 05/24/2018 Ehsan KHAJEH 106842160500
(P32654US1)
7238
161038 7590 06/30/2021
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
COOPER, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
docket@kuba-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EHSAN KHAJEH, BRIAN MICHAEL KING,
MOHAMMAD YEKE YAZDANDOOST, MARCUS YIP,
AARON SCOTT TUCKER, MARDUKE YOUSEFPOR,
PETER JON KARDASSAKIS, GIOVANNI GOZZINI,
SUPRATIK DATTA, and ASIF HUSSAIN
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, 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 1–27. Oral argument was heard on
June 3, 2021. A copy of the transcript was entered into the record on June
16, 2021. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention generally relates to acoustic touch and force
sensing. Spec. ¶ 2. The claimed subject matter relates to systems and
methods for using one set of transducers to send and receive acoustic signals
through both a surface and a deformable material to detect a touch location
and force, respectively. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A touch and force sensitive device, comprising:
a surface;
a deformable material disposed between the surface and a
rigid material, such that force on the surface causes a
deformation of the deformable material;
one or more transducers coupled between the surface and
the deformable material and configured to transmit ultrasonic
waves to and receive ultrasonic waves from the surface and the
deformable material; and
a processor configured to:
determine a location of a contact by an object on the
surface based on ultrasonic waves propagating in the
surface; and
determine an applied force by the contact on the
surface based on ultrasonic waves propagating in the
deformable material.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Stan US 5,341,687 Aug. 30, 1994
Grahn US RE37065 E Feb. 27, 2001
Nakagawa US 6,392,167 B1 May 21, 2002
Benard US 2004/0164970 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Horii US 2015/0054779 A1 Feb. 26, 2015
Choi US 2016/0357279 A1 Dec. 8, 2016
Medina US 2017/0255338 A1 Sept. 7, 2017

Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

3
REJECTIONS
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Medina. Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Medina and Choi. Final Act. 4–7.
Claims 2 and 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Medina, Choi, and Horii. Final Act. 7–8, 17–20.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Medina, Choi, and Grahn. Final Act. 8.
Claims 6–8, 12, 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Medina, Choi, and Benard. Final Act. 9–11, 13–16.
Claims 10 and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Medina, Choi, and Stan. Final Act. 11–13.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Medina, Choi, Bernard, and Nakagawa. Final Act. 16–17.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIM 27 AS ANTICIPATED
The Examine rejected claim 27 as anticipated by Medina. Final
Act. 2–3. Appellant does not appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
Appeal Br. 4 n.15 (“Without agreeing with the rejection of claim 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 presented in the Office Action, this rejection is not a subject
of this appeal.”). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim
27 as anticipated by Medina under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–26 AS OBVIOUS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–26 as obvious over Medina and Choi
or Medina and Choi in view of one or more of Horii, Grahn, Benard, Stan,
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

4
and Nakagawa. Final Act. 4–17. Among other arguments, Appellant
contends the Examiner’s rationale for combining Medina and Choi is
insufficient. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4–5. Each rejection of claims 1–26
relies on the same rationale for combining Medina’s and Choi’s teachings.
Because we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reason for combining
Medina and Choi is not supported by a rational underpinning, as discussed
further below, and because this determination is dispositive with respect to
the rejections of claims 1–26, we need not reach Appellant’s other
arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision
based on “a single dispositive issue”).
The Examiner finds Medina teaches every limitation recited in claim 1
except for the transducers being “coupled between the surface and the
deformable material.” Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner, however, finds Choi
teaches this limitation. Final Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner finds a
configuration of transducers 120-1 between surface of display 110 and
acoustic absorbing martial 20 “is taught by Choi in order to remove a ghost
touch,” and the Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Medina with Choi’s teachings in order “to remove . . .
ghost touches.” Final Act. 5 (citing Choi ¶¶ 14, 71, Fig. 2).
Medina discloses systems and methods for determining the force
applied using an ultrasonic sensor that detects reflected signals from a finger
interacting with the sensor. Medina, Abstract. Medina includes transducers
on one side of a surface that emit ultrasonic signals through the surface and
capture ultrasonic signals that are reflected when a user’s finger interacts
with the opposite side of the surface and a processor that generates a three-
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

5
dimensional (3D) fingerprint based on an image generated using the
captured reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 67–74, Fig. 8.
Medina’s ultrasonic sensor system may be implemented with mobile
electronic devices (e.g., a mobile phone) having a display (e.g., liquid crystal
display or light emitting diode devices) and, accordingly, the user’s finger
that reflects the signals may interact with an external surface of the display
(or a layer covering the display) that is opposite the side of the surface on
which Medina’s transducers are arranged. Medina ¶¶ 29–43. Using
coordinated time delays, Medina activates various transducers in a two-
dimensional array to emit the ultrasonic signals so that the signals reach a
desired focal point (i.e., the location at or slightly above the surface with
which a user’s finger may interact) approximately simultaneously and, at a
later time, the transducers switch to a reception mode so the desired
transducer(s) may receive the reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 44–49; see also
Medina ¶¶ 50–56 (further describing transducer arrays and synchronizing
emitted signals to target desired focal points).
Analyzing the captured signals, Medina can generate a 3D fingerprint.
Medina ¶ 61. Medina uses the depth information captured from the signals
to obtain the 3D fingerprint using, for example, the reflection time (or “time
of flight” (ToF))—the time difference between signal emission and
reception. Medina ¶ 63. Medina can use the captured signals for various
purposes, including to identify a user (based on their fingerprint) or to
determine the force applied by the user’s finger to the surface. Medina
¶¶ 60, 75 (describing identifying and/or authenticating a user based on the
captured fingerprint), 76 (describing detecting “the force or pressure that the
user applies with the finger”). Medina discloses an embodiment that
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

6
determines the force applied based on the finger deformations determined
using multiple captured reflected signals. Medina ¶¶ 77– 87, Fig. 9.
Choi discloses a touch screen device that determines touch locations
using ultrasonic waves and, more specifically, based on ToFs of the received
ultrasonic signals. Choi ¶ 11, Abstract, Fig. 2. Choi recognized one issue
with surface acoustic wave (SAW) touchscreens is that ghost touches may
be generated either by “pollutants on a touch screen surface” or by multi-
touch events. Choi ¶¶ 8, 14–15, 25, 36, 46, Figs. 8A–8D. Choi employs
multiple transducers at the outer part of a display’s surface that emit
ultrasonic signals and “receive ultrasonic signals reflected or refracted from
an object to detect distances from the” transducers. Choi ¶¶ 60–64. More
specifically, Choi discloses detecting reflected ultrasonic signals that were
emitted parallel to a display—i.e., the transducers “irradiate ultrasonic waves
across and above the display” and the device calculates a ToF for the signal
being reflected from an object touching the display. Choi ¶¶ 66–67.
Choi discloses using a reflector apparatus “to reflect or refract a
portion of an ultrasonic signal irradiated from the first ultrasonic sensor 120-
1 so as to be parallel with a surface of the display.” Choi ¶ 69. Choi further
discloses “an ultrasonic signal absorbing material 20 for absorbing an
ultrasonic signal, other than the ultrasonic signal that is reflected above the
display 110 to be parallel with the surface of the display.” Choi ¶ 71. In
other words, Choi’s reflector apparatus and signal absorbing material work
together to minimalize signals that are not parallel to the display. Choi also
discloses that the described arrangement minimizes the height above the
surface that is irradiated with ultrasonic signals in order to better avoid
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

7
detecting a touch event when an object merely hovers over the surface. Choi
¶¶ 72–73.
As already explained, Choi’s SAW system detects a touch event using
at least two transducers to determine the ToF of received ultrasonic signals.
Choi ¶¶ 67, 84. More specifically, Choi may determine a touch point by
calculating the respective distance an object is from two or more transducers
using the respective ToFs and identify the intersection point on the display
for those distances from the respective transducers. Choi ¶¶ 85–91.
Accordingly, Choi uses the distance of the touch location (based on
respective ToFs) from at least two ultrasonic sensors. Choi ¶ 92. While
detecting a multi-touch event, “ultrasonic signals respectively detected from
ultrasonic sensors include all of ultrasonic signals respectively reflected
from the two or more objects” and, therefore, when the ToFs are combined,
a “ghost touch” (i.e., a determined touch point that is not a “real touch”)
appears. Choi ¶ 107; see Choi ¶¶ 109–111 (describing how ghost touches
may occur). Choi, therefore, describes a method for removing such ghost
touches that includes synchronizing the ultrasonic sensors with each other.
Choi ¶¶ 112–115.
We agree with Appellant’s argument, see Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply
Br. 3–5, that Medina does not suffer from the ghost touches that Choi’s
system prevents due to the fact that Medina and Choi operate using different
principles. As explained above, Choi’s system removes ghost touches that
may occur due to multi-touch events and Choi’s technique for determining
the touch point and combining ToFs from multiple transducers. See Choi
¶ 92. As already explained, combining various ToFs for signals generated
from different transducers results in identifying a touch point that was not a
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

8
“real” touch point. Choi ¶¶ 107–115. Medina, on the other hand,
acoustically images a finger to generate a fingerprint and/or detect the force
applied. Medina ¶ 48. Although Medina may use ToF to acoustically image
the object touching the surface, Medina explicitly generates a high-intensity
beam at a desired focal point and receives the signals at particular
transducers by controlling the timing of emitting and receiving signals.
Medina ¶ 47. The evidence does not indicate that Medina detects a touch
position by combining the ToFs of multiple signals received at multiple
transducers.
Even accepting that the particular configuration (i.e., transducers
between the surface and the deformable material) taught in Choi that the
Examiner proposes incorporating into Medina is integral to removing ghost
touches,2 the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
determination that Medina suffers from the ghost touches identified in Choi.
Absent persuasive explanation or evidence that Medina suffers from this
issue, we see no basis for the Examiner’s conclusion that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Medina with to configure the
system as taught by Choi in order to remove these ghost touches that have
not been demonstrated to be present in Medina.

2 Choi teaches combining multiple ultrasonic sensors’ data regarding
received signals were emitted from multiple sources introduce ghost touches
and synchronizing the sensors may be useful to eliminate the ghost touches.
The role Choi’s particular structural configuration the Examiner determines
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied to Medina—placing
transducers between the surface and the deformable material—would play in
reducing ghost touches when added to a different system is unclear.
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

9
For these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner has not provided a
reason with a rational underpinning for modifying Medina with Choi’s
teachings to arrive at the arrangement of transducers coupled between the
surface and the deformable material, as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 11, 18, and 21. The
rejections of dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, 19, 20, and 21–26 rely on this
same combination and, accordingly, suffer from the same deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–26 as obvious.
Appeal 2021-000494
Application 15/989,063

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
27 102(a)(1) Medina 27
1, 3, 4, 9,
11, 17
103 Medina, Choi 1, 3, 4, 9,
11, 17
2 103 Medina, Choi,
Horii
2
5 103 Medina, Choi,
Grahn
5
6–8, 12, 13 103 Medina, Choi,
Benard
6–8, 12, 13
10, 14–16 103 Medina, Choi, Stan 10, 14–16
18, 20 103 Medina, Choi,
Benard
18, 20
19 103 Medina, Choi,
Bernard,
Nakagawa
19
21–26 103 Medina, Choi,
Horii
21–26
Overall
Outcome
27 1–26

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