EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 28, 2021

2020000750 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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. 15/393,504 12/29/2016 CHIN-FU CHANG 67607-122 3138 65358 7590 04/28/2021 WPAT, PC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS 8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405 VIENNA, VA 22182 EXAMINER CASILLAS, ROLAND J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHIN-FU CHANG Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 Technology Center 2100 BEFORE JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, 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, 4, 10, and 11. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY INC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an apparatus and a controlling method of an apparatus of a remote touch sensitive monitoring system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A apparatus of a remote touch sensitive monitoring system, the apparatus comprising: a touch screen; a touch sensitive module, configured to couple to the touch screen; a processing module, configured to couple to the touch sensitive module and the network module, wherein the processing module is configured to execute a program for receiving a setting parameter of the touch sensitive module from a remote apparatus of the remote touch sensitive monitoring system via the network module; commanding the touch sensitive module to use the setting parameter to get touch sensitive information corresponding to approaching events by an external conductive object which approaches or touches the touch screen; receiving the touch sensitive information of the touch screen calculated by the touch sensitive module and transmitting the touch sensitive information through the network module to the remote apparatus of the remote touch sensitive monitoring system. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Axelrod US 2014/0181715 A1 June 26, 2014 Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 3 REJECTION Claims 1, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Axelrod. Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 4. OPINION Specification According to the Specification, touch screens are one of the main sources of input for modern electronic devices. Spec. ¶ 3. Touch screens use touch sensitive integrated circuits for control. Id. ¶ 4. Different electronic device models may use the same model of integrated circuit to control their touch screens, but the integrated circuits may be programmed differently depending on the electronic device model. Id. For example, a cheap electronic device may not need the multi-touch functionality offered by the integrated circuit model used in the device, and therefore the integrated circuit may be configured so that this functionality is turned off. Id. According to the Specification, prior art integrated circuits for controlling touch screens can only be set, tested, and calibrated through a physical interface connected to the touch screen device. Id. ¶¶ 3–4. Therefore, electronic devices must be sent to the manufacturer if any repairs or updates to the configuration of the integrated circuit are needed. Id. The Specification further explains that sending the device to the manufacturer can be inconvenient, and therefore, the Specification proposes a system for facilitating remote configuration of integrated circuits for controlling a touch screen, using a network interface. Id. ¶ 5. Figure 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 4 Figure 1 illustrates a remote touch sensitive monitoring system. Figure 1 illustrates a remote touch sensitive monitoring system, comprising monitored apparatus 110 and monitoring apparatus 130, which are in communication with each other through network 120. Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 18, 23–24. Monitored apparatus 110 includes touch screen 112, touch sensitive module 114 configured to couple to touch screen 112, processing module 116 configured to couple to touch screen 112 and touch sensitive module 114, and network module 118. Spec. Fig. 1, ¶ 18. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 5 Touch sensitive module 114 may include one or several touch sensitive or controlling integrated circuit(s) configured to couple to multiple touch sensitive electrodes of touch screen 112. Spec. ¶ 19. Touch sensitive module 114 may include an analog front-end (AFE) circuit, a microprocessor, and a memory module configured to connect with the microprocessor, wherein the processor may perform calculations on touch sensitive data resulting from touch detected on touch screen 112. Id. ¶ 20. Calculation results may include, e.g., a two dimensional touch sensitive information array indicating points corresponding to touch points of touch sensitive electrodes of touch screen 112. Id. ¶ 21. Calculation results may be stored in the memory of touch sensitive module 114, and may also be provided to processing module 116 (which controls monitored apparatus 110). Id. ¶ 22. With reference to Figures 3 and 4, the Specification discloses two embodiments of controlling methods for monitored apparatus 110, implemented by a program executed by processing module 116. Spec. ¶¶ 38–52, Figs. 3–4. Discussion Appellant contends that claims 1, 4, 10, and 11 are not anticipated by Axelrod under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant argues that Axelrod does not disclose the following recitations of independent claim 1, and similarly recited limitations of independent claims 4 and 10: 1) receiving a setting parameter of the touch sensitive module from a remote apparatus, 2) commanding the touch sensitive module to use the setting parameter to get touch sensitive information, and 3) receiving the touch sensitive information of the touch screen calculated by Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 6 the touch sensitive module and transmitting the touch sensitive information through the network module to the remote apparatus of the remote touch sensitive monitoring system. Id. Appellant argues that claim 11, which depends from claim 10, is not anticipated by Axelrod for at least the reasons argued for claim 10. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection. 1. Axelrod Axelrod generally relates to mobile devices, disclosing that such devices are often used in scenarios that involve different physical activities such as sitting at a desk, walking on a treadmill, or jogging outdoors. Axelrod ¶ 1. According to Axelrod, it may be desirable to use environmental sensors to ascertain the device’s environment (e.g., whether the user of the device is stationary, walking, jogging, or riding in a vehicle), and to provide collected environmental data to applications on the mobile device in order to facilitate customization based on environmental context. Id. ¶¶ 1, 16. For example, a mapping application might enable speech recognition as a form of input, based on environmental data indicating the user is in a moving vehicle and therefore potentially unable to use touch- based user input modalities. Id. ¶ 19. Figure 5 of Axelrod, reproduced below, is illustrative. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 7 Figure 5 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary system for inferring physical activities of a user based on environmental properties. Figure 5 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary system for inferring physical activities of a user based on environmental properties. Axelrod ¶ 12. Figure 5 depicts device 502 comprising system 510 configured to present user interface 302 that is dynamically adjusted based on an inference of a current context 206 of a current environment 506 of user 102. Id. ¶ 25. Current context inferring component 512 infers current environmental context 206 based on receiving environmental properties 202 from Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 8 environmental sensor 106. Id. Axelrod discloses that system 510 may comprise a variety of environmental sensors, including, for example, a touch sensor configured to detect touch input. Id. ¶ 32. Axelrod further discloses that environmental sensors 106, rather than being housed within device 502, may be housed in a second device that is attached to user 102. Id. ¶ 31. Figure 7 of Axelrod illustrates an exemplary system 700 comprising computing device 702 configured to implement embodiments such as that of Figure 5 of Axelrod. Axelrod ¶¶ 51, 53. Figure 7 is reproduced below. Figure 7 illustrates an exemplary computing environment configured to implement the embodiments disclosed in Axelrod. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 9 Figure 7 illustrates an exemplary system 700 comprising a computing device 702 configured to implement the embodiments disclosed in Axelrod. Axelrod Fig. 7. Computing device 702 includes, in pertinent part, processing unit 706, input device 714 (which may be a touch input device), and communication connection 716 for communicating with computing device 720 through network 718. Id. 2. Anticipation For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding Axelrod anticipates the rejected claims, because Axelrod has not been shown to disclose “receiving a setting parameter of a touch sensitive module from a remote apparatus” and “transmitting [] touch sensitive information . . . to the remote apparatus”. Appeal Br. 13–15. For a prior art reference to anticipate, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These elements must be arranged as in the claim. Id. (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. American Hoist Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Here, the rejected claims require both 1) receiving a setting parameter of a touch sensitive module from a remote apparatus, and 2) transmitting touch sensitive information through a network module to the remote apparatus. As detailed below, the Examiner relies on a different component in Axelrod for disclosure of a “remote apparatus” for the “receiving” recitation, than for the “transmitting” recitation. As a result, the Examiner has not shown Axelrod discloses every element of the rejected claims identically. Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 10 With regard to receiving a setting parameter from a remote apparatus, the Examiner relies on Figure 7 of Axelrod, finding that computing device 702 receives a setting parameter from computing device 720. Final Act. 4. The Examiner therefore treats computing device 720 as the recited “remote apparatus.” In contrast, with regard to transmitting touch sensitive information to a remote apparatus, the Examiner relies on Figures 4 and 5 of Axelrod, identifying Axelrod’s disclosure of a “second device” sending environmental property 202 to a “first device.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. The Examiner therefore treats Axelrod’s “first device” as the recited “remote apparatus.” In other words, depending on the claim recitation, the Examiner alternatively relies on two different disclosures in Axelrod—i.e., computing device 720 or, alternatively, Axelrod’s “first device”—for disclosure of the “remote apparatus.” However, the Examiner has not shown that these devices are interchangeable, or that either device provides both the receiving and transmitting features required by the claims. Therefore, the Examiner improperly relies alternatively on one device for disclosure of the receiving feature, and a different device for disclosure of the transmitting feature. Specifically, with regard to receiving a setting parameter from a remote apparatus, the Examiner finds processing unit 706 of computing device 702 receives executable programming instructions from computing device 720. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Fig. 7, ¶¶ 53–54, 56, 58, 60). As noted above, the Examiner therefore treats computing device 720 as the recited “remote apparatus.” Without conceding that the executable programming instructions received by processing unit 706 include “a setting parameter of Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 11 the touch sensitive module,” as recited in claim 1, Appellant argues there is no disclosure in Axelrod of transmitting touch sensitive information of the touch screen to computing device 720 (i.e., asserted “remote apparatus”), as required by the claims. Appeal Br. 13–15. We agree with Appellant that Axelrod does not disclose transmitting touch sensitive information to computing device 720. Specifically, for disclosure of touch sensitive information, the Examiner relies on Axelrod’s disclosure of environmental property 202 received from environmental sensor 106. Final Act. 5 (citing Axelrod Fig. 4, ¶¶ 24, 32). Assuming arguendo, without deciding, that environmental property 202 is “touch sensitive information,” as recited in claim 1, Axelrod does not disclose transmitting such information to computing device 720. See, e.g., Axelrod ¶¶ 56, 60; Appeal Br. 15. Indeed, Axelrod does not disclose computing device 702 transmitting any information to computing device 720 (i.e., a “remote apparatus”). Axelrod ¶¶ 56, 60. The Examiner implicitly acknowledges that Axelrod does not disclose transmitting touch sensitive information to computing device 720. Indeed, the Examiner does not provide any analysis stating that touch sensitive information is transmitted to computing device 720. Final Act. 5. Rather, for the transmitting feature, the Examiner relies not on computing device 720 of Figure 7, but instead relies on Figures 4 and 5 of Axelrod, which are respectively, a flow chart and a block diagram, illustrating an exemplary method of inferring physical activities of a user based on environmental properties. Id. (citing Axelrod Fig. 4, ¶¶ 24, 32). Specifically, Figure 4 discloses a processor configured to receive at least one environmental property of a current user environment from an Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 12 environmental sensor. Axelrod Fig. 4. The Examiner finds that the environmental property in Axelrod is “touch sensitive information corresponding to approaching events by an external conductive object which approaches or touches the touch screen,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner further finds that Axelrod discloses transmitting the environmental property from a “second device” to a “first device.” Ans. 5; Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner therefore finds the transmission of environmental property 202 from a “second device” to a “first device” is tantamount to transmitting touch sensitive information to a remote apparatus. Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Assuming, without deciding, that this disclosure satisfies the transmitting claim recitation, the Examiner provides no explanation, under the assumption Axelrod’s “first device” is a “remote apparatus,” as to how Axelrod discloses the receiving claim recitation. Id. Nor do we discern any such disclosure. Axelrod’s “second device” includes environmental sensor 106 and communication hardware and/or software. Axelrod ¶ 31 (disclosing that the “second device” comprises environmental sensors 106, and is in communication with a “first device” (and therefore has communication capabailities)). Axelrod’s “first device” appears to be essentially computing device 502 (wherein environmental sensor 106 has been moved off the computing device). Axelrod Fig. 5, ¶¶ 24, 25, 28, 31 (disclosing that the “first device” may comprise a server to evaluate environmental properties 202 to infer current context). At best, Axelrod discloses the “second device” transmitting environmental properties 202 to the “first device.” See, e.g., id. The Examiner has not explained, nor do we discern, how Axelrod discloses the “second device”—e.g., environmental Appeal 2020-000750 Application 15/393,504 13 sensor 106—receiving a setting parameter from the “first device.” Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5. For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner has not shown that Axelrod discloses every element of the rejected claims identically. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 10, and of claim 11, which depends from claim 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. More specifically, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Axelrod is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 10, 11 102(a)(1) Axelrod 1, 4, 10, 11 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 10, 11 REVERSED