EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2021

2019006966 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
15/154,313 05/13/2016 CHIN-FU CHANG 67607-083CIP2 1086
65358 7590 06/22/2021
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
EXAMINER
ELAHI, TOWFIQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2021 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
and SHANG-TAI YEH
____________

Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FENICK, 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, 7–11, 14–21, 24–28, and 31–34,
which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies eGalax_eMPIA Technology Inc. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to transmitting electrical signals
representing the pressure level on the tip of a touch screen stylus.
Spec. ¶¶ 2–3, 7. The pressure value may be represented by digital data and
expressed, for example, in decimal or hexadecimal format. Id. ¶¶ 146, 148.
In one embodiment, a transmitter sends out electrical signals in two or more
successive time periods, with each digit of a pressure value represented by
the electrical signals of a time period. Id. ¶¶ 148–151.
Claims 1 and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A transmitter, comprising:
a tip section;
a first sensor; and
a processing module, electrically coupled to the first sensor and
the tip section, configured to transmit a first electric signal during a
first time period and to transmit a fourth electric signal during a fourth
time period, wherein the first electrical signal represents a first digit
of a digital sensing value of the first sensor in numeral system based
on N, where N is bigger than 2, wherein the fourth electric signal
represents a second digit of the digital sensing value of the first sensor
in numeral system based on N,
wherein a transmitting time length of the first electric signal
relates to the first digit’s value and a unit time length.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

3
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 7–11, 16–21, 24–28, 33, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Falkenburg3 and
Okamoto.4 Final Act. 3–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 14, 15, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Falkenburg, Okamoto, and Morag.5 Final
Act. 11–12.6
OPINION
Appellant argues that the combination of Falkenburg and Okamoto
fails to teach or suggest transmitting a “first electrical signal represent[ing] a
first digit of a digital sensing value of the first sensor in numeral system
based on N, where N is bigger than 2” and transmitting a “fourth electric
signal represent[ing] a second digit of the digital sensing value of the first
sensor in numeral system based on N,” as recited in independent claims 1

2 A rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement has been withdrawn.
Ans. 3; see Final Act. 2–3.
3 Falkenburg et al., US 2012/0331546 A1 (pub. Dec. 27, 2012).
4 Okamoto et al., US 6,744,426 B1 (iss. June 1, 2005).
5 Morag et al., US 7,282,229 B2 (iss. Nov. 6, 2007).
6 Although the Examiner and Appellant do not include claims 14, 15, 31,
and 32 in their lists of rejected claims/claims on appeal (Final Act. 1 (Office
Action Summary); Appeal Br. 5, 9; Reply Br. 5, 9), we see no withdrawal of
this rejection in the record and thus understand that claims 14, 15, 31, and 32
stand rejected. Appellant also mentions these claims in the Argument
sections of the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. Appeal Br. 17, 19; Reply
Br. 18–20.
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

4
and 18. Appeal Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant argues that neither
Falkenburg nor Okamoto teach or suggest “expressing individually each
digit of a number under a N-based numeral system.” Id. at 13, 14; Reply
Br. 13, 15.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Falkenburg
discloses a pressure sensor transmitting a measurement of force applied by a
stylus, corresponding to the recited “first electrical signal represent[ing] a
first digit of a digital sensing value of the first sensor.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Falkenburg ¶ 44). The Examiner then finds that Falkenburg discloses that
“two sets of measurements can be correlated” to determine the validity of
the measurements (Falkenburg ¶ 68), and that the stylus includes multiple
sensors and a multiplexer “for selecting which sensor(s) to enable and
transmit a measurement” (id. ¶ 66, Fig. 14). Final Act. 4–5. According to
the Examiner, Falkenburg’s multiplexer “with its more than 2 lines of
sensor[s] to select from” corresponds to the recited “numeral system based
on N, where N is bigger than 2.” Id.
Falkenburg describes an intelligent stylus which can provide a stylus
condition as well as a touch input when used with a touch sensitive device.
Falkenburg, code (57), ¶¶ 4, 44. For example, the stylus may include a
pressure sensor which can sense and measure a force being applied by the
stylus to the surface of a device, with this measurement being provided to a
microcontroller in the stylus. Id. ¶ 44, Fig. 4. Other sensors may be
included, in various combinations, including sensors such as
contact/proximity sensors, motion/orientation sensors, surrounding touch
sensor (sensing a position of a hand holding the stylus), rotation sensor,
pushbutton sensor, or bristle sensors. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32, 46, 48, 50, 59, 66. The
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

5
stylus may include a multiplexer or other switch which selects which sensors
in the stylus will be enabled and transmit a measurement to the
microcontroller. Id. at ¶ 66. Additionally, sensors in the touch sensitive
device may make measurements, which may be compared to the
measurements made by stylus sensors, and the measurements from the two
devices (touch sensitive device and stylus) may be correlated to determine if
they mutually confirm each other, or, alternatively, whether an error has
occurred. Id. at ¶ 68.
We do not find that Falkenburg’s transmission of measurements
selected from multiple sensors meets the claimed limitation of
“represent[ing] a first digit of a digital sensing value . . . in numeral system
based on N, where N is bigger than 2.” As Appellant points out, the cited
portions of Falkenburg do not discuss expressing measured values, and in
particular any digits of those values, under any particular numeral system.
See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 13–15.
The Examiner finds that Okamoto discloses code train (G) containing
“pen attribute information” transmitted from a stylus pen (“coordinate input
device”), corresponding to the recited “fourth electric signal represent[ing] a
second digit of the digital sensing value of the first sensor in numeral system
based on N.” Final Act. 5 (citing Okamoto Fig. 1(b)); Okamoto 1:16–17,
56–62. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the fourth bit out of ten bits
transmitted in Okamoto’s code train (G) meets the recited “fourth electric
signal.” Ans. 5; see Okamoto Fig. 1(b). Okamoto describes a stylus pen
transmitting code train (G) which includes ten bits—two start bits, seven bits
indicating pen attribute information (e.g., ink color or pen tip thickness), and
a single stop bit. Okamoto 1:56–62, 11:56–63, Fig. 1(b). We agree with
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

6
Appellant that, like Falkenburg, the cited portions of Okamoto do not
discuss representing any digits of measured values under any particular
numeral system. See Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 15–16.
Even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
express the measured values of Falkenburg and Okamoto under some
numeral system, it is unclear how Falkenburg’s transmitted measurement(s)
combined with any part of Okamoto’s code train (see Final Act. 5–6) would
represent first and second digits of the same “digital sensing value of the
first sensor,” as required by independent claims 1 and 18.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–21, 24–28, and 31–34.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–21, 24–28,
and 31–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–11,
16–21, 24–28,
33, 34
103 Falkenburg,
Okamoto
1–4, 7–11,
16–21, 24–28,
33, 34
14, 15, 31, 32 103 Falkenburg,
Okamoto, Morag
14, 15, 31, 32
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–11,
14–21, 24–28,
31–34
Appeal 2019-006966
Application 15/154,313

7
REVERSED