Ex Parte Bulea

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13489774 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)

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