Christoph KRAH et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

12022572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
12/022,572 01/30/2008 Christoph Horst KRAH 106842008500 (P5551US1) 5895
161038 7590 11/03/2020
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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 CHRISTOPH HORST KRAH and
STEVE PORTER HOTELLING
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 8–13, and 20–28. Claims 2–7
and 14–19 are objected to, but are otherwise indicated as being directed to
allowable subject matter, and thus form no part of our Decision. See Non-
Final Act. 28–29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 for this appeal as Apple
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to an auto scanning for multiple frequency
stimulation multi-touch sensor panels. See Spec. (Title). In particular,
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention “relate[] to the
use of multiple stimulation frequencies and phases to detect touch events on
a touch sensor panel in a low-power or sleep state of expected touch
inactivity, so that when a touch event is detected, the touch sensor panel can
be activated or awakened into its full-power capability to thereafter detect
and localize touch events.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis added to dispositive prior-art limitation):
1. A method for detecting whether a touch event has
occurred on a touch sensor panel, comprising:
while maintaining a panel processor in a reduced power
state,
generating one or more stimulation signals, the
stimulation signals representing AC waveforms having one or
more frequencies and one or more phases;
simultaneously driving a first group of rows of the touch
sensor panel with the one or more stimulation signals in a single
scan of sense nodes on the touch sensor panel, each of the first
group of rows receiving a plurality of periods of a particular
stimulation signal during each scan, and coupling charge from

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
May 20, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct. 7, 2019); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 6, 2019); Non-Final Office Action (“Non-
Final Act.,” mailed July 20, 2018); and the original Specification (“Spec.,”
filed Jan. 30, 2008).
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

3
the first group of rows into one or more columns of the touch
sensor panel,
determining whether first output signals received from
one or more sense channels coupled to the one or more columns
of the touch sensor panel exceed[] a predetermined threshold
indicative of a change in the charge coupled into one of the
columns and the occurrence of a touch event, and
when at least one of the first output signals exceeds the
threshold indicative of sufficient charge coupling onto a column
of the touch sensor panel to recognize the touch event,
triggering a subsequent capture of second output signals from
the one or more sense channels, different from the first output
signals, the second output signals for determining a location of
the touch event.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Harkcom et al. (“Harkcom”) US 2004/0056845 A1 Mar. 25, 2004
Reynolds US 2007/0109274 A1 May 17, 2007
Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 7,737,957 B2 June 15, 2010
REJECTIONS3
R1. Claims 1, 8–10, 12, 13, 20–22, and 24–28 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Reynolds and Lee. Non-Final Act. 3.

3 As noted above, dependent claims 2–7 and 14–19 were indicated by the
Examiner as being objected to for their dependence on a rejected claim, but
which would otherwise be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

4
R2. Claims 11 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Reynolds, Lee, and
Harkcom. Non-Final Act. 26.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellant with respect
to independent claims 1, 13, 27, and 28 for the specific reasons discussed
below.
1. § 103(a) Rejection R1 of Claims 1, 8–10, 12, 13, 20–22, and 24–28
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 2–7) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Reynolds and Lee is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] method for detecting whether a touch event has occurred on
a touch sensor panel,” that includes, inter alia, the dispositive conditional
limitation of “when at least one of the first output signals exceeds the
threshold indicative of sufficient charge coupling onto a column of the touch
sensor panel to recognize the touch event, triggering a subsequent capture of
second output signals from the one or more sense channels, different from
the first output signals, the second output signals for determining a location
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

5
of the touch event,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added), and as
commensurately recited in each of independent claims 13, 27, and 28?4
Analysis
With respect to the dispositive conditional “triggering” limitation, the
Examiner finds:
[P]aragraph [0040] [of Reynolds] describes utilizing
multi-frequency spectrum analysis of the sense signal
taking detection thresholds according to a particular
spectrum of frequencies and to thereby detect a touch,
paragraph [0043]; paragraph [0039] and figure 2
describes modifying the received modulated signal in a
periodic, aperiodic, or other time basis implying a
subsequent capture of second output signals different
from the first periodically, aperiodically, etc. performed
regardless of the detection of the first output signal
exceeding the threshold or not; therefore, since the touch
input system inherently detects touches above a
predetermined at least zero threshold and at least
periodically modifies the output signal for capture of
second signals this discloses when at least one of the first
output signals exceeds the threshold to trigger subsequent
capture since the subsequent capture is always performed
regardless of the first output signal being higher or not.
Non-Final Act. 5 (italics omitted).
In response, Appellant persuasively argues, and we agree:
Page 5 of the Office Action alleges that paragraph [0040]
of Reynolds discloses detection thresholds. However, paragraph

4 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of 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”).
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

6
[0040] only describes spread-spectrum techniques for reducing
the effects of noise (i.e. creating a larger signal-to-noise ratio).
In Reynolds, there is no comparison of an output signal to a
noise threshold to detect a touch event. The spread-spectrum
techniques reduce the effect of the noise signal to the point
where there is no need for subsequent captures of the touch
data. In other words, because the touch data is never rejected,
there is no need for a subsequent capture of touch data.
Accordingly, Reynolds contains no teaching or suggestion of a
subsequent capture of output signals, as required by the claims.
Page 5 of the Office Action also alleges that Reynolds’
teaching in paragraph [0039] of modifying the received
modulated signal in a periodic, aperiodic, or other time basis
implies a subsequent capture of output signals. However,
paragraph [0039] only discusses modulating signals using
digital codes, which provides the advantage of noise reduction
or other performance improvements when demodulating the
sensed signals. The mere use of digital codes for modulation
and demodulation of signals in no way implies a subsequent
capture of output signals.
Appeal Br. 10 (underlining added).
In support of our finding, we note Reynolds further describes their
technique for detecting a position-based attribute of a finger, stylus or other
object by use of modulation signals in which:
The modulation signals are applied to an associated at
least one of the plurality of electrodes to obtain a
resultant signal that is electrically affected by the position
of the object. The resultant signal is demodulated using
the plurality of distinct digital codes to discriminate
electrical effects produced by the object. The position-
based attribute of the object is then determined with
respect to the plurality of electrodes from the electrical
effects.
Reynolds ¶ 5.
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

7
We find, even assuming that Reynolds teaches or suggests use of a
threshold to determine a touch event, the techniques for modulating and
demodulating digital codes for noise reduction purposes and use in touch
position location as taught by Reynolds, and others portions as cited by
Appellant, do not support the Examiner’s determination that Reynolds
teaches or suggests the contested conditional “triggering a subsequent
capture of second output signals from the one or more sense channels,
different from the first output signals, the second output signals for
determining a location of the touch event” limitation, as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and as commensurately recited in
each of independent claims 13, 27, and 28.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument and find the
cited prior art combination does not teach or suggest the recited conditional
“triggering” limitation such that we do not sustain Rejection R1 of claims 1,
13, 27, and 28, and claims 8–10, 12, 20–22, and 24–26 which variously
depend therefrom.
2. § 103(a) Rejection R2 of Claims 11 and 23
Issue 3
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1
and 13, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejection R2 under § 103(a) of
claims 11 and 23, which respectively depend from claims 1 and 13. On this
record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Harkcom
reference overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with Reynolds and Lee,
as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Appeal 2020-000196
Application 12/022,572

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 and R2
of claims 1, 8–11, 12–13, and 20–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited
prior art combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
1, 8–10, 12,
13, 20–22,
24–28
103(a)
Obviousness
Reynolds,
Lee

1, 8–10, 12,
13, 20–22,
24–28
11, 23 103(a) 11, 23
Overall
Outcome
1, 8–10, 12,
13, 20–22,
24–28
REVERSED