Ex Parte CHANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2019

14587343 - (D) (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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7