Ex Parte CHANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2019

14587343 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/587,343 12/31/2014 65358 7590 02/25/2019 WPAT, PC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS 8230 BOONE BL VD. SUITE 405 VIENNA, VA 22182 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR CHIN-FU CHANG 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 67607-073CIP 4821 EXAMINER LIN,HANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2019 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 Exparte CHIN-FU CHANG, SHANG-TAI YEH, and JEN-YI SUN Appeal2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 1 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-10, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 2 1 Appellants identify EGALAX_EMPIA TECHNOLOGY INC., as the real party in interest. (Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed December 31, 2014, the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed November 14, 2016, the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed June 14, 2017, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 27, 2017. Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for detecting mistaken approaching or touching events caused by ghost points or water spots on a touch screen. (Spec. ,r 2.) Appellants' invention detects mistaken approaching or touching events by "gathering one or more touch sensitive signal value corresponding to a line piece," "calculating a sum of differences of each signal value and a baseline value," and "if the sum is less than or equals to zero, determining the line piece is corresponding to a mistaken approaching/touching event." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for determining mistaken approaching/touching event, comprising: gathering multiple neighboring touch sensitive signal values corresponding to a line piece; calculating a sum of differences of each of the signal values and a baseline value; and determining the line piece is corresponding to a mistaken approaching/touching event when the sum is less than or equals to zero. 2. The method of claim 1, further comprises calculating the line piece according to 1 D sensing information having dual difference values. (Br. 9-10 (Claims App.).) REJECTION & REFERENCE Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) based on Toda et al. (US 2013/0207935 Al, published Aug. 15, 2013 ("Toda"). (Final Act. 3-7.) 2 Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 The Examiner finds Toda teaches all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6. (Final Act. 3-5.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Toda's touch sensing method determines a mistaken approaching or touching event by gathering multiple neighboring touch sensitive signal values from intersection points of reception-side and transmission-side electrodes corresponding to a line piece. (Final Act. 3--4 (citing Toda ,r,r 31, 38, Fig. 5).) The Examiner also finds Toda's calculation of a variation distribution of electrode detection signals calculates a sum of differences of each of the signal values and a baseline value, as claimed. (Final Act. 4 ( citing Toda ,r,r 35, 38, Fig. 1).) The Examiner further finds Toda determines the line piece corresponds to a mistaken approaching or touching event ( e.g., due to a water spot), when the calculated sum is less than or equal to zero, as claimed. (Final Act. 5 ( citing Toda ,r,r 31, 39).) Appellants argue "the independent claims require ... the calculation of a sum of values all corresponding to a single line electrode of the touchscreen device," which Toda does not disclose. (Br. 6 ( emphasis added).) Claims 1 and 6, however, do not require the neighboring signal values to be values from a single line electrode. Appellants' Specification also does not provide an explicit and exclusive definition of the claimed line piece as corresponding to a single line electrode, as Appellants contend. (See Br. 6.) Rather, Appellants' Specification merely provides discussion of non-limiting examples of one-dimensional sensing information of a line 3 Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 piece, using the term "may."3 Thus, Appellants' claimed "line piece" is commensurate with Toda's collection of signal values from sensing points of adjacent electrodes along an axis (i.e., one-dimensional sensing information) as shown in Toda's Figure 4. (See Toda Fig. 4; Spec. ,r,r 35, 41.) Toda's Figure 4 is reproduced below with annotations to indicate certain features. FIG. 4 Toda's Figure 4 shows lines of electric force between transmission-side electrodes 10 and reception-side electrodes 11 when a drop of water contacts the electrostatic touch panel. Toda ,r 22. 3 Appellants' Specification broadly describes "One-dimensional Sensing Information: A plurality of sensing information corresponding to a first axis or a second axis," which "may indicate a collection of signal values of m sensing points of m driving electrodes corresponding to a single sensing electrode," and "may also indicate a collection of signal values of n sensing points of n sensing electrodes corresponding to a single driving electrode." (Spec. ,r 35 (emphasis added).) "In other words, one-dimensional sensing information may include signal values of m sensing points, or signal values of n sensing points," and "[ o Jue-dimensional sensing information may also include single difference values or dual difference values of min sensing points." (Spec. ,r 35 (emphasis added).) 4 Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 We therefore agree with the Examiner that Toda's measurement of detection signals corresponding to a water spot gathers "multiple neighboring touch sensitive signal values corresponding to a line piece" as claimed. (Final Act. 3--4.) Appellants next argue Toda does not teach the claimed "calculating a sum of differences of each of the signal values and a baseline value" because "Toda uses the peak value of its distribution [ of detection signals shown in Figure 3], [and] it does not need to sum values of this distribution." (Br. 7.) Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the broad language of claims 1 and 6 allows a reading of Appellants' claims on Toda. For example, Appellants' claims 1 and 6 merely require calculating a sum of differences of two neighboring signal values and a baseline value. Toda similarly determines differences ( detection signal variations L'iCi) of each signal value and a baseline value, noting that Li Ci is negative for water and positive for a finger. (See Toda ,r,r 31-32.) Toda further calculates a variation distribution of a collection of detection signal variations Li Ci, which calculates the claimed sum of differences (e.g., a sum of two L'iCi values) when the collection consists of two Li Ci values for which (1) one Li Ci has a value of zero, and (2) the other L'iCi has a non-zero negative value (indicating presence of water). (See Toda ,r,r 14, 32, 64, and Fig. 3 (disclosing that a L'iCi can be zero, and other L'iCi can be negative for water).) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Toda teaches "calculating a sum of differences of each of the signal values and a baseline value," as recited in claims 1 and 6. (Ans. 3; Final Act. 4.) Toda further teaches the claimed "determining the line piece is corresponding to a mistaken approaching/touching event when the sum is less than or equals to zero." 5 Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 (Final Act. 5; see Toda ,r,r 33-34, 40, and Fig. 3 (disclosing an area delimited by detection signals is negative for a water drop).) Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's findings. We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as anticipated by Toda. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 10, not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2-4 and 7-9 The Examiner finds Toda's touch detection method calculates a line piece "according to ID sensing information having dual difference values" as recited in dependent claims 2 and 7. (Final Act. 6.) Particularly, the Examiner interprets the claimed "dual difference values to be the detection signal" in Toda, and finds Toda's "Fig. 5 and paragraphs 38-39 show[] ... calculating the line piece according to ID sensing information having dual difference values" as claimed. (Ans. 4.) We do not agree. We agree with Appellants that Toda does not teach calculating ID sensing information having "dual difference values" as claimed and described in Appellants' Specification. (Br. 7-8.) Contrary to Examiner's assertion that "'dual difference values' is not defined closed-ended" by Appellants' Specification (see Ans. 4), the Specification does provide an explicit and exclusive definition of "dual difference value" as "[t]he difference between adjacent difference values," where a "difference value" is "[t]he difference in signals values between adjacent sensing points." (See Spec. ,r,r 39-40; Br. 7.) In other words, the claimed dual difference values are "analogous to a rate-of-change of the rate-of-change ( or second derivative) of the signal values" of adjacent sensing points. (Br. 7 .) Thus, we agree with Appellants that Toda's detection signals do not teach the 6 Appeal 2018-006628 Application 14/587,343 claimed dual difference values, and "Toda fails to teach or imply calculating the line piece according to 1 D sensing information having dual difference values" as claimed. (Br. 7 .) As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of claims 2 and 7, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 2 and 7. We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 dependent from one of dependent claims 2 and 7. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4 and 7-9 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7