Ex Parte Cormier et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2019

13613840 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/613,840 09/13/2012
23494 7590 06/19/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Francis Cormier JR.
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.
TI-71427 5936
EXAMINER
YODICHKAS, ANEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD FRANCIS CORMIER, JR. and
MICHAEL DOUGLAS SNEDEKER
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7. Appellants have withdrawn
claims 8-20 and canceled claims 3, 4, and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed September 13, 2012, which claims the benefit of U.S.
provisional patent application 61/602,693, filed February 24, 2012; "Final
Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed October 11, 2017; "App. Br." for
Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed March 13, 2018; and "Ans." for Examiner's
Answer, mailed May 15, 2018. Appellants elected not to file a Reply Brief.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
BACKGROUND
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
capacitive touch screens. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter ( emphasis added to disputed limitation):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a capacitive touch screen (CTS);
a touch screen interpolator (TSI) coupled to the CTS;
a touch screen capacitive memory (TSCM) coupled to the touch
screen interpolator,
wherein the interpolator is configured to generate a first value
indicative of a placement of a touch on the CTS based at least
on the following data points:
a first magnitude of change of capacitance of a first node
of the CTS having a largest magnitude of change of
capacitance;
a position of the first node;
a second magnitude of change of capacitance of a first
closest neighbor node of the first node on an axis; and
a third magnitude of change of capacitance of a second
closest neighbor node of the first node on the axis,
wherein the interpolator is further configured to determine a
difference between the second and third magnitudes, to
determine a lesser of the second and third magnitudes, and to
generate the first value based on the difference between the
second and third magnitudes and the lesser of the second and
third magnitudes.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x) (indentation modified for clarity) (emphasis
added).
2
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over Simmons (US 2010/0097329 Al, published April 22, 2010)
and Pance (US 2011/0012838 Al, published January 20, 2011). Final
Act. 5-7.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 1, 2,
and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter and
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement and for being indefinite. Final
Act. 2--4. However, the Examiner withdrew these rejections in the Answer
(Ans. 5), so they are not before us on Appeal.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We have considered all of
Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, and 5-7 together as a group. See App.
Br. 6-8. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we limit our factual findings and legal conclusions to
claim 1. Dependent claims 2 and 5-7 stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 recites "a second magnitude of change of capacitance of a
first closest neighbor node of the first node on an axis" and "a third
3
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
magnitude of change of capacitance of a second closest neighbor node of the
first node on the axis." App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x). Claim 1 further
recites: "the interpolator is further configured to determine a difference
between the second and third magnitudes, to determine a lesser of the second
and third magnitudes, and to generate the first value based on the difference
between the second and third magnitudes and the lesser of the second and
third magnitudes." Id. (referred to in this Decision as the "disputed
limitation").
The Examiner found Simmons teaches or suggests these claim
limitations. Final Act. 5---6, 8. In particular, the Examiner found the claimed
"first node" is taught by node (2,2), which has the largest magnitude, and the
claimed first and second "neighbor node[ s ]" are taught by the two nodes
adjacent to node (2,2). Id. ( citing Simmons, Fig. 3A, ,r,r 9, 10). The
Examiner found that Simmons determines the magnitude of the signal at
each node and then calculates the "x or y position" of a touch by
"subtracting the lowest of the three signal values in the nodes from the two
higher signal values." Id. (citing Simmons, Fig. 2, 3A, ,r,r 10, 51, 55).
Specifically, as part of determining touch position, Simmons subtracts the
smallest magnitude ( of a first adjacent node) from the magnitude of the
second adjacent node. Simmons ,r 10.
Appellants argue that the references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Specifically, Appellants state:
Paragraphs (0051) and (0055) of Simmons et al. describe
driving X lines and detecting the presence of an object through
a change in an amount of charge induced on the key during a
burst measurement of cycles. These paragraphs have nothing to
do with "an interpolator ... configured ... to determine a lesser
of the second and third magnitudes, and to generate the first
value based on ... the lesser of the second and third
4
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
magnitudes" as positively recited in amended claim 1. Pance et
al. (U.S. Pub. 2011/0012838) fails to overcome the deficiencies
discussed above with respect to Simmons et al.
App. Br. 7-8. However, Appellants fail to address the cited disclosure at
paragraphs 9 and 10 of Simmons. Id. In addition, Appellants do not provide
any other arguments or evidence to show error in the rejection. 3 See
generally id. In the Answer, the Examiner restates the finding that
paragraph 10 of Simmons teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 6.
Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut these findings.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. In
particular, the Examiner found Simmons teaches the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 5-6, 8; Ans. 6. Simmons teaches:
For the x coordinate an average could be computed taking
account of the immediately left and right positioned nodes.
Namely, one subtracts the lowest of these three values from the
other two values and then performs a linear interpolation
between the remaining two values to determine the x-position.
Referring to [Figure 3A ], we subtract 18 from 20 and 26 to
obtain 2 and 8. The x-position is then computed to be 1/5 of the
distance from 2 to 1, i.e. 1.8. A similar calculation is then made
for the y-coordinate, i.e. we subtract 14 from 26 and 18 to
obtain 12 and 4. They-position is then 4/16 of the distance
from 2 to 3, i.e. 2.25. The touch location is therefore (1.8,
2.25).
3 Appellants merely restate the language of claim 1; however, this does not
show error. See Ex Parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843, at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10,
2009) (informative); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv) ("A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more ... than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a
naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior
art.").
5
Appeal2018-008056
Application 13/613,840
Simmons ,r 10. The Examiner found this teaches the disputed limitation, and
we agree. Appellants fail to address or distinguish these teachings and do
not respond to the rejection as articulated. As a result, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner's findings or conclusion as to obviousness. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (If an examiner presents
a prima facie case, "the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shifts to the applicant.")
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims (i.e., claims 2, 5, 6, and 7),
which fall therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-7.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6