Ex Parte BuleaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201713489774 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017) 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. 13/489,774 06/06/2012 Mihai Bulea 38018/173001 3543 111408 7590 06/23/2017 Osiha T iana T T P/S»vnar>tirsi EXAMINER 909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500 Houston, TX 77010 CHOWDHURY, AFROZA Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2017 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): hathaway@oshaliang.com docketing@oshaliang.com lord@oshaliang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIHAI BULEA Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,7741 Technology Center 2600 Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21. Claims 7 and 14 have been canceled. See App. Br. 25, 27. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Synaptics, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A processing system for an input device, the processing system comprising: a transmitter module comprising transmitter circuitry, the transmitter module coupled to first and second transmitter electrodes and configured to drive a first end of the first transmitter electrode to produce a first voltage gradient across the first transmitter electrode, and to drive a first end of the second transmitter electrode to produce a second voltage gradient across the second transmitter electrode; a receiver module configured to receive a first plurality of resulting signals associated with the first transmitter electrode with a plurality of receiver electrodes, and a second plurality of resulting signals associated with the second transmitter electrode with the plurality of receiver electrodes, the first plurality of resulting signals each comprising effects of the first voltage gradient and the second plurality of resulting signals each comprising effects of the second voltage gradient, wherein the first and second transmitter electrodes interact with the plurality of receiver electrodes to form a two dimensional array of pixels; and a determination module configured to determine a two- dimensional capacitive image comprising a first pixel value and a second pixel value based on the first and second pluralities of resulting signals, wherein the first pixel value is determined using a first capacitive measurement resulting from a first amplitude of the first voltage gradient, wherein the second pixel value is determined using a second capacitive measurement resulting from a second amplitude of the first voltage gradient that is a different voltage from the first amplitude, and 2 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 wherein the determination module is further configured to determine positional information for a first input object located within a sensing region based on the capacitive image. App. Br. 24 (Claims App’x). THE REJECTIONS2 Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 8—9. Claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Day et al. (US 2011/0062974 Al; pub. Mar. 17, 2011) (“Day”) and Hargreaves et al. (US 2011/0062969 Al; pub. Mar. 17, 2011) (“Hargreaves”). Final Act. 9-22. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) In rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner finds Appellant’s Specification does not provide written description support for “a first resistance value” and “a second resistance value.” Final Act. 8—9. The Examiner explains the claim language is not consistent with the Specification, which does not describe or disclose either “a first resistance value” or “a second resistance value.” See Ans. 2; Final Act. 9. Appellant asserts there is no in haec verba requirement that the exact phrase “resistance value” be recited within the Specification to establish written description support. App. Br. 10 (citing MPEP § 2163). Appellant argues the Specification’s disclosure of non-uniform resistivity along a 2 The provisional rejection of claims 1—6 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1—7 of copending application 13/339,125 of Small (now US 9,134,827 B2; iss. Sept. 15, 2015) in view of Hargreaves has been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 transmitter electrode provides adequate written description support for, and shows Appellant had possession of, “a first resistance value” and “a second resistance value” as of the original filing date. App. Br. 8—10 (citing Spec. 1141,48,51,52,56, 72). As an example, Appellant points to paragraph 41 of the Specification, which discloses “[transmitter electrodes ... are constructed from a conductive material. . . [that] may have non-uniform resistivity, such as having a higher or lower resistivity on the distal ends than in the middle portion.” Spec. 141 (emphasis added), see also 148. Appellant also points to paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Specification, which disclose “[determination module 308 may then determine the two-dimensional capacitive image based on both a first plurality of resulting signals (associated with transmitter electrode 410-0) and second plurality of resulting signals (associated with transmitter electrode 410-1). . . [,] [wherein] transmitter electrodes 410-0 and 410-1 may each be ... a non- uniform resistive material.” Spec. H 51, 52 (emphasis added). Appellant explains the Specification’s disclosure of ‘non-uniform resistivity” along a transmitter electrode shows there are two different resistance values, which provides adequate support for the claim terms at issue. App. Br. 11. Appellant further explains “[a]n electrode having ‘resistivity’ requires implicitly and inherently that the electrode has a ‘resistance value.’ An electrode having ‘differing resistivities’ requires implicitly and inherently that the electrode has different resistance values. [That t]he ‘claim language’ us[es] slightly different language than ... the specification is irrelevant.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). 4 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 We agree with Appellant. To satisfy the written description requirement, “the disclosure of the application relied upon [must] reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas- Cathlnc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562—63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, ... the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . . . .”). Here, although Appellant’s Specification does not literally disclose “a first resistance value” or “a second resistance value,” it contains an equivalent description of these terms with its disclosure of a transmitter electrode having non-uniform resistivity (for example, having a different resistivity on the distal ends than in the middle portion of the electrode). See, e.g., Spec. H 41, 48, 51, 52. As Appellant explains, the fact that the transmitter electrode has different resistivities means it has different resistance values. See Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s Specification conveys, with reasonable clarity, possession of “a first resistance value” and “a second resistance value.” See, e.g., Spec. H 41, 48, 51, 52. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiners’ rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). 5 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 Rejections under 103(a) Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Day and Hargreaves teaches or suggests “a determination module configured to determine a two-dimensional capacitive image comprising a first pixel value and a second pixel value . . .as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11—17; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant asserts the disputed limitation “requires, at least: (i) a two-dimensional capacitive image that includes a series of pixel values; and (ii) individual pixel values from two-dimensional capacitive image relate to a particular capacitive measurement of a portion of a particular transmitter electrode.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). But Appellant submits “the Examiner has not accorded this construction to independent claim 1 ” and instead unreasonably interprets the disputed limitation as including Day’s disclosure of determining multi-dimensional positional information along an X-axis and Y-axis. App. Br. 13—14; see Final Act. 10— 12 (citing Day Tflf 29, 30, 37, 40, 44, 47-49, 61, 83). Appellant asserts that, contrary to the disputed limitation, Day’s multi-dimensional positional information “is not a capacitive image that includes pixel values” and that the Examiner is ignoring the claimed relationship between capacitive measurements and pixel values in the capacitive image. App. Br. 14. Accordingly, Appellant argues the cited disclosures of Day do not teach or suggest the claimed “pixel value[s]” or “capacitive image.” App. Br. 16. Appellant further argues “there is no mention of voltage gradients anywhere [in] Hargreaves, let alone any mention of using different amplitudes of a voltage gradient to determine different pixel values of a capacitive image, as recited in independent claim 1.” App. Br. 17. 6 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner’s proposed suggestion to modify Day in view of Hargreaves lacks a rational basis. App. Br. 20-22. Here, Appellant asserts Hargreaves’s “improved optical quality” refers to a reduction in the layers of the imaging sensor. App. Br. 21 (citing Hargreaves 116). Appellant argues the Examiner fails to provide any explanation, reasoned analysis, or evidence as to how the combined teachings of Day’s determining of multi-dimensional positional information and Hargreaves’s plurality of transmitter and receiver electrodes forming a capacitive image comprising a two-dimensional array of pixel values, would produce “improved optical quality.” App. Br. 22. Having considered the Examiner’s rejections in light of each of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Day and Hargreaves. We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and reasoning consistent with the analysis below. See Final Act. 9—25; Ans. 2—8. As an initial matter, Appellant’s arguments improperly attack Day and Hargreaves individually, without substantively addressing what a person of ordinary skill would have understood from the combined teachings of the Day and Hargreaves references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). More specifically, Appellant’s arguments attacking Day do not address or rebut the Examiner’s specific findings with respect to Hargreaves. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hargreaves broadly but reasonably teaches a two-dimensional capacitive image formed from a 7 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 plurality of pixel values, each of which results from a particular change in capacitive coupling at an intersection between a particular transmitting electrode and receiving electrode. See Final Act. 12 (citing Hargreaves H 15 (“[CJapacitive images are formed by measuring the capacitance at each intersection of each transmitter and receiver sensor electrodes . . . forming a matrix or grid. The presence of an input object (such as a finger or other object) at or near an intersection changes the measured ‘transcapacitance’. These changes are localized to the location of object, where each transcapacitive measurement is a pixel of a ‘capacitive image’ and multiple transcapacitive measurements can be utilized to form a capacitive image of the object.”), 19, 21, 25, 42^43); Ans. 3; see also Hargreaves 1 65 (“[A] capacitance image is determined using the first and second measurements of capacitive coupling. The capacitance image comprises pixels which are mathematically determined by processing system 110, from measured capacitances. ... A plurality of pixels can be calculated and combined to produce a capacitive image.”). Further, Appellant’s arguments attacking Hargreaves do not address or rebut the Examiner’s specific findings with respect to Day. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Day broadly but reasonably teaches a drive electrode having a voltage gradient of varying voltages that may differ in amplitude. See Final Act. 10-11 (citing Day H 47 (disclosing that drive electrode D0 can be constructed from a conductive material that has non-uniform resistivity, allowing for the imposition of a non-uniform left-to-right voltage gradient across the electrode), 48, 49, 83); see also Final Act. 7; Day 1110 (“the varying voltages [of the voltage gradient along the length of the drive electrode] may be different in amplitude”). The Examiner’s findings are 8 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which similarly discloses imposing a voltage gradient of different amplitudes across a transmitter electrode. See e.g., Spec. || 41, 48, 51, 52. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we find Day’s method of determining multi-dimensional positional information of an input object teaches, or at least suggests, (1) a two-dimensional “capacitive image” including a two-dimensional array of “pixel value[s]” and (2) a relationship between capacitive measurements and pixel values in the capacitive image. See Final Act. 10-12 (citing Day, Figs. 2B, 3A, || 37, 40, 44, 47-49, 61, 83). In particular, Day teaches a touch screen interface including a sensor overlaying an active area of a display screen. Day |40. Day’s sensor has one or more drive electrodes and one or more sense electrodes disposed proximate to the drive electrode(s). See Final Act. 10 (citing Day, Fig. 2B (items D0, So), Fig. 3A). Day’s drive electrode(s) can extend along an X- axis in a two-dimensional (X-axis, Y-axis) Cartesian coordinate system. Final Act. 10—11 (citing Day, Fig. 2B (items D0, So, 201, 202), Fig. 3 A, || 44, 47-49, 83). Further, Day teaches measuring the change in capacitive coupling between a particular drive electrode and a particular sense electrode based on a finger (or other input object) approaching the sensor. See Day || 36, 61 (“When a finger or other input object approaches the sensor, it changes the capacitive coupling between D0 and So in the region near the input object and a . . . measurement... of the sense signal can be acquired”). Based on one or more capacitive coupling measurements, Day’s method can determine multi-dimensional positional information of the input object. Day, Abstract (“The processing system also acquires a first measurement of the first electrical signal and determines positional 9 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 information along the length of the first drive electrode based upon the first measurement, wherein the positional information is related to an input object.”), Figs. 9A (item 930), 9B (item 960), 36 (“In some embodiments, such [capacitance] measurements can be utilized by processing system 110 to determine input object positional information relative to the sensing region formed by sensor 108.”), 37 (“Processing system 110 can also be implemented to determine multi-dimensional positional information as a combination of values . . . .”), 44, 69 (disclosing that positional information for an input object can be determined using a measured change in capacitance coupling). In view of the foregoing, we find Day’s determined multi-dimensional positional information teaches, or at least suggests, a two-dimensional “capacitive image” including a two-dimensional array of “pixel value[s]” because it corresponds to the particular two-dimensional area on the display screen over which the user has touched his or her finger or stylus. Further, we find Day’s determined multi-dimensional positional information teaches, or at least suggests, a relationship between capacitive measurements and pixel values in the capacitive image because it results from one or more changes in capacitive coupling between the drive and sense electrodes. Consistent with the above teachings of Day and Hargreaves, Appellant’s Specification discloses a series of ‘pixels’ 452 of a capacitive image are defined ... at the intersections of transmitter electrode 410 and receiver electrodes 450. In this way, a determination module . . . may determine a capacitive image based on the plurality of resulting signals. That is, the position of one or more input objects laterally along transmitter electrode 410 may be determined 10 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 based on the local change in capacitance induced by the proximity of the input object(s). Spec. |49. In combining the teachings of Day and Hargreaves, the Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate Hargreaves’s idea of generating pixels of [a] capacitive image to modify Day’s processing system in order to improve optical quality . . . .” Final Act. 13 (citing Hargreaves |16). This particular motivation to combine, however, was unnecessary to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because Day also teaches or suggests the limitations for which the Examiner cites Hargreaves. In particular, as discussed above, Day teaches or suggests a two-dimensional capacitive image having a two-dimensional array of pixel values formed from measuring changes in capacitance at intersections between transmitter electrodes and receiver electrodes. See Final Act. 10—12 (citing Day, Figs. 2B, 3A, || 37, 40, 44, 47-49, 61, 83); see also Day, Figs. 9A, 9B, || 36, 69. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s citations to Hargreaves, including the cited motivation to combine, because they were unnecessary to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness over Day. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (sustaining a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by relying on less than all of the references); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966). Moreover, regardless of whether modifying Day with the teachings of Hargreaves would produce “improved optical quality,” Appellants have not asserted applying Hargreaves’s known transcapacitive sensing scheme (yielding a two-dimensional capacitive image including a two-dimensional array of pixel values) to Day’s device (including a drive electrode that has a 11 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 voltage gradient of varying voltages that may differ in amplitude) would have been uniquely challenging or anything more than a routine exercise applying known techniques to achieve predictable results. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416—17 (2007) (explaining as examples of combinations likely to be obvious “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods . . . when it does no more than yield predictable results” and “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement”); Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419). Further, given Day’s disclosure, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Hargreaves because both Day and Hargreaves claim priority to the same provisional application (U.S. Provisional App. 61/241,692). Compare Day 11, with Hargreaves 11. We remind Appellant “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as the rejections of claims 2—6, 8— 13, and 15—20, which are not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 11—17, 20-23; Reply Br. 3—6. Regarding claim 21, to the extent Appellant makes arguments substantially similar to those advanced for claim 1, we find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons stated above regarding claim 1. See App. Br. 17—19; Reply Br. 3^4. Appellant further argues Day does not teach or 12 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 suggest “determining a first pixel value and a second pixel value using a first resistance value and a second resistance value, let alone determining pixel values using different resistance values as recited in dependent claim 21.” App. Br. 19. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. As an initial matter, Appellant’s argument improperly attacks Day individually, without substantively addressing what a person of ordinary skill would have understood from the combined teachings of the Day and Hargreaves references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As discussed above regarding claim 1, Hargreaves teaches the known technique of determining a pixel value based on a change in capacitance (due to an input object) measured at an intersection between a transmitter electrode and receiver electrode. Further, as the Examiner explains and in accordance with Appellant’s Specification, Day’s drive electrode can be made of a conductive material having “non-uniform resistivity,” which teaches, or at least suggests, a transmitter electrode having different resistance values along its length. See Final Act. 7 (citing Day 43, 47, 49, 58); accord Spec. H 41 (disclosing a transmitter electrode having “non-uniform resistivity”), 48, 51, 52; App. Br. 11 (asserting the Specification’s disclosure of “non-uniform resistivity” provided clear written description support for two different resistance values). Accordingly, we find no reason why applying Hargreaves’s known technique of determining a pixel value to multiple points along Day’s electrode of non-uniform resistivity would have been uniquely challenging or anything more than a routine exercise applying known techniques to achieve predictable results (i.e., a first pixel value determined using a first 13 Appeal 2017-002591 Application 13/489,774 resistance value of Day’s drive electrode and a second pixel value determined using a second, different resistance value of Day’s drive electrode). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416—17. For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—13, and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation