Ex Parte Bokma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

12950693 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
12/950,693 11/19/2010 Louis W. BOKMA 106842039200 (P9906US1) 8248
69753 7590 02/28/2018
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
EOfficeL A @ mofo. com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUIS W. BOKMA
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-21. Claims 22-25 were withdrawn from
consideration. App. Br. 18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention configures and controls a touch sensing system
to reduce measurement errors and avoid noise. To that end, an integration
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
November 20, 2014 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 7, 2015
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 30, 2015 (“Ans.”);
and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 28, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
capacitance is pre-charged before an electrode or pixel scan starts resulting
in more consistent measurements and less scan noise. See generally
Abstract; Spec. 2, 7, 29, 34. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for synchronizing a capacitive touch
sensing system to avoid capacitance measurement errors,
comprising:
a counter configured for generating a count value
indicative of a capacitance during a capacitance measurement
cycle; and
a processor capable of triggering an interrupt from an end
of a previous capacitance measurement cycle, and
starting a new capacitance measurement cycle a
predetermined delay after the interrupt is received;
wherein the delay is selected such that the start of the
new capacitance measurement cycle occurs within a charge
portion of a capacitance charge/discharge cycle and the counter
is disabled.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Philipp (US 2007/0062739 Al; Mar. 22, 2007) and Tasher
(US 2010/030198 Al; Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 4-13.
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Philipp discloses a processor capable of
(1) triggering an interrupt from an end of a previous capacitance
measurement cycle, namely via a control signal closing reset switch 404 in
Figure 6A, and (2) starting a new capacitance measurement cycle a
predetermined delay after the interrupt is received, namely after the reset
switch is open. Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, this delay is
selected such that the start of the new capacitance measurement cycle occurs
2
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
within a charge portion of a capacitance charge/discharge cycle as shown in
the annotated version of Philipp’s Figure 6B. Final Act. 4-5. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Philipp lacks the recited counter-based
limitations, the Examiner cites Tasher for teaching these features in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Philipps does not start a new capacitance
measurement cycle within a charge portion of a capacitance
charge/discharge cycle as claimed. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s
interpretation of this portion covers a time period when no charging occurs,
namely at the rising edge associated with the state of switch 401 in Philipp’s
Figure 6B. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant also contends that
Philipp does not start a new capacitance measurement cycle after a
predetermined delay is selected such that starting the new capacitance
measurement cycle occurs within the recited charge portion. App. Br. 8-10;
Reply Br. 5.
According to Appellant, Philipp’s drive signal 109 is synchronized
with the control signal to sampling switch 401 and, therefore, the delay
cannot be selected as claimed. App. Br. 9. Appellant further contends that
Philipp does not trigger an interrupt from an end of a previous capacitance
measurement cycle as claimed because the identified delay immediately
follows the end of the measurement cycle with no intervening interrupt.
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5. Appellant adds that the control signal
identified by the Examiner as corresponding to this interrupt must occur
before—not after—the end of the capacitance measurement cycle. App. Br.
11.
3
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Philipp and Tasher collectively would have taught or suggested a
processor capable of (1) triggering an interrupt from an end of a previous
capacitance measurement cycle, and (2) starting a new capacitance
measurement cycle a predetermined delay after the interrupt is received,
where the delay is selected such that the start of the new capacitance
measurement cycle occurs within a charge portion of a capacitance
charge/discharge cycle and the counter is disabled?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting the key temporal aspects of the processor’s
functionality recited in claim 1. As noted above, the processor must be
capable of triggering an interrupt from an end of a previous capacitance
measurement cycle, and (2) starting a new capacitance measurement cycle a
predetermined delay after the interrupt is received. Moreover, the delay is
selected such that the start of the new capacitance measurement cycle occurs
within a charge portion of a capacitance charge/discharge cycle.
The Examiner relies principally on Philipp’s Figure 6B for teaching
this sequence. See Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 2-5. As shown in the Examiner’s
annotated version of Philipp’s Figure 6B on page 5 of the Final Rejection
reproduced below, the Examiner identifies one capacitance measurement
cycle from the first rising edge of the signal associated with numeral 109 to
the rising edge of the signal associated with reset switch 404.
4
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
discharging
Fig, 6B
Examiner’s annotated version of Philipp’s Figure 6B
Appellant, however, contends that Philipp’s Figure 6B shows a single
capacitance measurement cycle that begins when reset switch 404 goes low
and ends when reset switch goes high. Reply Br. 3—4. Therefore, both the
Examiner and Appellant agree that Philipp’s capacitance measurement cycle
ends when reset switch 404 goes high, but differ as to when this cycle
begins. According to the Examiner, this cycle begins at the first rising edge
of the signal associated with numeral 109, but Appellant contends that the
cycle begins earlier, namely when reset switch 404 goes low. Compare
Final Act. 5 with Reply Br. 3—4.
Although a capacitance measurement cycle can be defined between
the respective transitions of Philipp’s reset switch 404 as Appellant
indicates, we nevertheless see no reason why a capacitance measurement
cycle could not also be defined between the first rising edge of the signal
associated with numeral 109 and the rising edge of the signal associated with
reset switch 404 in Philipp’s Figure 6B as the Examiner indicates. Nothing
5
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
in the claim precludes the Examiner’s interpretation in this regard, nor does
the Specification define the term “capacitance measurement cycle” to so
limit its interpretation, unlike other terms that leave no doubt as to their
meaning.2 Under its plain meaning, a “cycle” is “a course or series of events
or operations that recur regularly and usu[ally] lead back to the starting
point.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 288 (10th ed.
1993). Because events associated with Philipp’s signals 109 and 404 recur
regularly and are associated with capacitance-based measurements as noted
in paragraphs 64 and 65, the time period from the first rising edge of the
signal associated with numeral 109 to the rising edge of the signal associated
with reset switch 404 in Philipp’s Figure 6B is a “capacitance measurement
cycle” under the term’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 3—4) are unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Philipp at least
suggests triggering an interrupt from an end of a previous capacitance
measurement cycle, namely via a control signal closing reset switch 404 in
Figure 6A. Final Act. 4. Because this control signal is applied to the reset
switch’s gate terminal at the rising edge of the corresponding signal 404 in
Figure 6B at the end of the capacitance measurement cycle, Philipp at least
suggests triggering an interrupt from the end of this cycle. See Ans. 5
(noting this point); see also Philipp 65. Appellant’s contention that this
interrupt occurs before—not after—the cycle ends (App. Br. 11) is
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the limitation that does
2 See, e.g., Spec. 44 45 (defining “computer-readable storage medium”
and “transport medium”).
6
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
not preclude the Examiner’s interpretation, namely that Philipp at least
suggests triggering an interrupt from an end of the previous cycle.
Philipp also at least suggests starting a new capacitance measurement
cycle a predetermined delay after the interrupt is received. Not only is there
a delay between the rising edge of the signal 404 associated with reset
switch 404 in the previous cycle and the rising edge of the signal associated
with numeral 109 in the next cycle as the Examiner illustrates in the
annotated version of Philipp’s Figure 6B on page 4 of the Answer, but
Philipp also at least suggests that this delay can be predetermined. See
Philipp ^ 65 (noting that after the measurement is taken, reset switch 404 is
closed again, and the cycle restarted when next desired, e.g., after a delay
appropriate to the device being controlled).
Notably, this predetermined delay is effectively selected under these
circumstances such that the start of the new capacitance measurement cycle,
namely at the first rising edge of signal 109 in Philipp’s Figure 6B, occurs
within a “charge portion” of a capacitance charge/discharge cycle. We reach
this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that a “charge portion” is
limited to only that part of a cycle when charging occurs as Appellant
contends. See App. Br. 7. As Appellant acknowledges, Philipp’s charge
integrator (capacitor) 402 charges when its voltage level becomes non-zero
as shown in the lowermost state diagram of Figure 6B. See App. Br. 8.
Because this charging begins simultaneously with the first rising edge of
signal 109—the start of the new capacitance measurement cycle—as shown
in Philipp’s Figure 6B, the start of this new cycle occurs within a “charge
portion” of a capacitance charge/discharge cycle, namely at the beginning of
that charge portion. Appellant’s contention that because Philipp’s new
7
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
capacitance measurement cycle starts when reset switch 404 goes low and,
therefore, is not within the charge portion {see App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4-5)
is unavailing, for this argument is not germane to the Examiner’s finding
that the first rising edge of signal 109 commences the new capacitance
measurement cycle as noted above.
Philipp also at least suggests a discharge portion of this cycle at least
when the capacitor 402’s voltage is zero. This discharge portion is at least
before the first rising edge of signal 109 in Philipp’s Figure 6B, and
presumably after the last rising edge of reset switch 404 despite the figure
apparently erroneously not showing this latter discharged state as Appellant
contends. See Reply Br. 3—4 (arguing that Philipp’s Figure 6B erroneously
does not show capacitor 402 discharging when switch 404 goes high).
Although the Examiner refers to the state of sampling switch 401 in
connection with the recited charge/discharge cycle {see Final Act. 5; Ans. 2-
3), we nonetheless see no harmful error in these findings at least to the
extent that the identified charge portion corresponds at least partly to the
charged state of capacitor 402—a charge portion in which the new
capacitance measurement cycle starts as noted above.
Fastly, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 12),
we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Tasher for the limited purpose
for which it was cited, namely for at least suggesting the recited counter-
based limitations, including disabling the counter when a new
charge/discharge cycle starts in Figure 6. See Final Act. 6. Appellant’s
arguments regarding Tasher’s individual shortcomings, including not
starting a new capacitance measurement cycle within the recited charge
portion (App. Br. 12), do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s obviousness
8
Appeal 2016-002532
Application 12/950,693
rejection where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’
collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-21 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9