Christoph KRAH et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 202012022572 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation