EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 2021

2020004545 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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. 15/802,563 11/03/2017 SHANG-TAI YEH 67607-139 7526 65358 7590 11/03/2021 WPAT, PC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS 8230 BOONE BLVD. SUITE 405 VIENNA, VA 22182 EXAMINER GYAWALI, BIPIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2021 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 SHANG-TAI YEH and CHENG-HAN LEE ____________________ Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 16, and 18 through 26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We note that the Examiner identifies claim 16 as rejected, but does not include claim 16 in any of the rejections. Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates to a touch screen with a driver sending a driving signal simultaneously to two or more electrodes. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A touch sensitive processing apparatus configured to connect to a touch screen and used to detect at least one object approximating or touching the touch screen, wherein the touch screen comprises a plurality of first electrodes being parallel to a first axis, a plurality of second electrodes being parallel to a second axis, and a plurality of third electrodes being parallel to the second axis, wherein each of the first electrodes is arranged to be spanned on the touch screen and intersects with the second electrodes or the third electrodes to form multiple intersection areas, the touch sensitive processing apparatus comprising: a driving circuit, connecting to the first electrodes, respectively; a sensing circuit, connecting to the second electrodes and the third electrodes, respectively; and a processor, configured to connect to the driving circuit and the sensing circuit, the processor configured for executing following steps: having the driving circuit sending a driving signal to all of the first electrodes; having the sensing circuit simultaneously sensing the driving signal via the second electrodes to generate a one-dimensional first half screen sensing information, having the sensing circuit simultaneously sensing the driving signal via the third electrodes to generate a one dimensional second half screen sensing information; determining if at least one object approximating or touching at least one of the second electrodes according to the one-dimensional first half screen sensing information; and Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 3 determining if at least one object approximating or touching at least one of the third electrodes according to the one-dimensional second half screen sensing information, wherein the processor is further configured for executing, iteratively, following steps when the at least one object approximating or touching at least one of the second electrodes or at least one of the third electrodes is determined: having the driving circuit simultaneously sending the driving signal to two or more of the first electrodes, wherein at least one of the two or more first electrodes intersects with the second electrodes to form the multiple intersection areas, the other of the two or more first electrodes intersects with the third electrodes to form the multiple intersection areas; and having the sensing circuit simultaneously sensing the driving signal via the second electrodes to generate a one- dimensional sensing information, having the sensing circuit simultaneously sensing the driving signal via the third electrodes to generate another one-dimensional sensing information. Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 4 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 23 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parekh (U.S. 2014/0210731 A1, published July 31, 2014). Final Act. 3–6. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 9 through 11, 13, 14, and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parekh and Azumi (US 2015/0022494 A1, published January 22, 2015). Final Act. 6–9. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parekh and Lee (US 2017/0285832 A1, published October 5, 2017).4 Final Act. 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 23 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and of claims 2, 3, 5, 9 through 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims is in error as Parekh does not “disclose or suggest the recited determining step for determining whether any object is touching or 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed June 20, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 28, 2020 (“Ans.”). 4 We note that the examiner identifies claim 16 as rejected (see Ans. 4) but does not include claim 16 in any of the rejections. As claim 16 recites a limitation similar to claim 5, we consider it to be rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 5 approximating to the touch screen for proceeding the second tier sensing step; further the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest an one- dimensional array, as specifically claimed.” Appeal Br 19 (emphasis original). Appellant argues that Parekh discusses touch detection in two modes, a regular and a reduced scanning rate mode (Fig. 3, step 304) but that step 304 does not teach or suggest determining whether there is an object touching the touch screen. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Parekh Fig. 3). Appellant acknowledges that Parekh in step 302 discusses conventional touch detection but does not disclose a two-tier touch detection. Appeal Br. 19 (citing Parekh Fig. 3). Further, Appellant argues that Parekh “fails to disclose or suggest one-dimensional array in a multi-tier touch detection practice as recited in the claim 1.” Appeal Br. 19. The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments states: First, Parekh clearly discloses detecting touches in both areas 210 and 212 (Fig. 2) by driving a set of electrodes, one from each area (Para. 0026). And, Parekh continues to drive the electrodes even after a detection of a touch (Para. 0026, 0027). Furthermore, the claims do not explicitly recite a “second tier sensing step”. Appellants’ limited arguments appear to focus on Parekh’s reduced scanning rate mode. These arguments are seen as immaterial and moot, as this secondary mode has not been mapped to any of the current independent claim limitations. Second, the claims also do not explicitly recite “one- dimensional array.” Rather the claims merely require one- dimensional information. Parekh detects a touch in a first and second half of the screen just as in the instant application. As detailed in paragraphs 32 and 39 of Parekh, the absence or occurrence of a touch is determined for the top half and bottom half of the touch screen. This absence or occurrence is seen to clearly disclose the claimed one-dimensional information. Ans. 4. Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 6 Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Initially, as identified by the Examiner, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. None of independent claims 1, 12, or 23 through 26 recite a limitation directed to a multi-tier touch detection. In as much as Appellant’s arguments about a multi-tier touch detection is referring to the claim 1 limitation of “iteratively, following steps when the at least one object approximating or touching at least one of the second electrodes or at least one of the third electrodes” we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. This limitation is not directed to a two tier detection, but rather an iterative process. Furthermore, this limitation is not recited in all the independent claims, it only appears in claims 1, 12, and 23. Additionally, Appellant’s arguments directed to the multi-tier touch detection address a teaching in Parekh, directed to step 304, that is not relied upon by the Examiner to teach the iterative processes limitation. Rather, as identified in the Examiner’s response on page 4 of the Answer, cited above, the Examiner is relying upon Parekh’s teaching of continuing to drive the electrodes even after a detection of a touch to teach the claimed iterative process. Appellant has not addressed this finding by the Examiner. Thus, Appellant’s arguments concerning multi-tier touch detection are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23 through 26. Appellant’s arguments directed to a one-dimensional array are similarly unpersuasive as they are not commensurate with the scope of the independent claims 1, 12, and 23 through 26. Each of these claims recite limitations directed to one-dimensional half screen information. The Examiner finds the one-dimensional half screen information is disclosed by Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 7 Parekh. Final Act. 4 (citing ¶¶ 28, 29, 32); Ans. 4. (citing ¶¶ 32, 39). Appellant’s arguments have not addressed the teachings of Parekh cited by the Examiner to support the finding that Parekh discloses the one- dimensional half screen information limitation. Thus, Appellant’s two arguments directed to the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 23 through 26 have not persuaded us of error by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 23 through 26. Appellant argues that the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9 through 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 through 22 are in error for the same reasons as argued with respect to the independent claims. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 9 through 11, 13, 14, 16, and 20 through 22 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the independent claims. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23–26 102(a) Parekh 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23–26 2, 3, 9–11, 13, 14, 20– 22 103 Parekh, Azumi 2, 3, 9–11, 13, 14, 20– 22 5, 16 103 Parekh, Lee 5, 16 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–16, 18–26 Appeal 2020-004545 Application 15/802,563 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED