Ex Parte Crockett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

10991668 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TIMOTHY W. CROCKETT and
ROBERT S. FORTENBERRY

________________

Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 10, 12-14, and 17-33.
1
Specifically,
claims 25-33 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US 6,972,753 B1, December 6, 2005)
(“Kimura”).
Claims 10, 12-14, and 17-24 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Kimura and Yu
et al. (US 7,101,070 B2, September 5, 2006) (“Yu”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
providing a touch interface on a display. The method and system include
providing an emitter on a first side of the display and providing a detector
on a second side of the display. The emitter provides an electromagnetic
signal to the display. The electromagnetic signal has a path from the
emitter to the detector through the display in the absence of a user’s touch
such that the electromagnetic signal is detected by the detector in the
absence of the user’s touch. The path includes at least one total internal
reflection in the display. The emitter and the detector are configured such
that the user's touch at any of the at least one total internal reflection alters

1
Claims 1-9, 11, 15, 16 are canceled. App. Br. 11-12.
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

3
the path such that a portion of the electromagnetic signal does not reach the
detector. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants’ arguments concerning the rejection of all of the rejected
claims are based on whether Kimura discloses, or teaches away from, a
single limitation. App. Br. 6. Based on Appellants’ arguments, we select
claim 25 as representative. Claim 25 recites:
25. A system for providing a touch interface for a display
comprising:

an emitter on a first side of the display, the emitter
providing an electromagnetic signal to the display; and

a detector on a second side of the display, the
electromagnetic signal having a path from the emitter to
the detector through the display in the absence of a user’s
touch such that the electromagnetic signal is detected by
the detector in the absence of the user’s touch, the path
including at least one total internal reflection in the
display; and

a barrier for blocking a zero mode path between the
emitter and the detector for the electromagnetic signal,
the zero mode path comprising a path without internal
reflection;

wherein the emitter and the detector are configured such
that the user’s touch at any of the at least one total
internal reflection alters the path such that a portion of
the electromagnetic signal does not reach the detector.

App. Br. 15.

Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

4
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We address each of Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as presented in
Appellants’ Brief.

Rejection of claims 25-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Kimura
discloses the limitation of claim 25 reciting “a barrier for blocking a zero
mode path between the emitter and the detector for the electromagnetic
signal, the zero mode path comprising a path without internal reflection.”
App. Br. 6. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so
erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Kimura does not disclose or suggest a barrier
for blocking a zero mode path between the emitter and the detector for the
electromagnetic signal. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend, rather, that
Kimura discloses refracting the emitted light with a prism lens sheet and
that refracted light by definition is not blocked light. Id. Appellants argue
that Kimura discloses that light from an illumination device illuminates a
light-receiving face of the prism lens sheet and enters the prism lens sheet;
refracted light that enters the prism lens sheet cannot be blocked light. Id.
(citing Kimura, col. 5, ll. 40-45). According to Appellants, the prism lens
sheet of Kimura cannot, therefore, be a barrier for blocking a zero-mode
path between the emitter and the detector for an electromagnetic signal as
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

5
claimed in the present application, because the prism lens sheet does not
block light. Id.
Appellants also argue that Final Office Action fails to point to any
specific item in Kimura that is such a barrier. App. Br. 7. Instead,
Appellants allege, both the response to arguments section and the rejection
in the Final Office Action describe how the light in Kimura travels, not any
elements of Kimura. Appellants argue that Kimura fails to anticipate claim
25 because it does not disclose with the requisite particularity a barrier
blocking a zero-mode path. App. Br. 7.
Appellants argue further that Kimura teaches away from blocking a
zero mode path by expressly generating a zero-mode path. App. Br. 7
(citing Kimura, col.5, ll. 40-53). Appellants contend that Kimura’s teaching
that “the incident light 203 to the light guide panel 101 can propagate in the
inside of the light guide panel 101 along the X-axis without flaring in the
Y-axis direction” does not disclose a barrier for blocking a zero-mode path
between the emitter and the detector for the electromagnetic signal. App.
Br. 8 (quoting Kimura, col. 5, ll. 50-53).
The Examiner responds that the proper inquiry based upon the
current claim limitations rests upon whether the barrier recited in claim 25
is blocking, not the emitted light, but a zero-mode path. Ans. 15. The
Examiner finds that, whereas the prism lens sheet disclosed by Kimura may
or may not block the emitted light, the prism lens sheet blocks light from
passing directly through light guide panel without internal reflection. Id.
The Examiner finds that, assuming Kimura’s prism lens sheet directly
causes all light to undergo an internal reflection, the prism lens sheet is by
definition blocking a zero mode path. Id.
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

6
The Examiner also finds that independent claims 10 and 18 merely
recite the step of blocking and do not explicitly recite a “barrier” element.
Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds that, within the final rejections of claims
21 and 32, the barriers are expressly mapped in the Final Office Action as
corresponding to the “innermost steep angle in the prism lens sheet” and
“each beveled edge of the prism, 111 in Fig. 4a,” respectively. Id. The
Examiner finds that the rejection of independent claim 25 maps the claim
term “barrier” to Kimura, col. 2, ll. 52-55 and col. 6, lines 3-10. Ans. 16.
Consequently, the Examiner finds, the beveled edges of the prism lens sheet
correspond to the claim term “barrier.” Id.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Appellants have misconstrued the
language in Kimura cited by Appellants reciting “flaring in the Y-axis
direction.” Ans. 16. The Examiner finds that the axis designations in
Figure 3A illustrate that flaring in the Y-axis results in movement in a
direction that would not affect the internal reflection of the light. Ans. 16.
The Examiner finds that Kimura explicitly discloses that Fig. 3A depicts a
“partial top view,” which Examiner finds is of little help in determining
whether the light is subjected to internal reflection as it propagates from one
side to the other. Ans. 16 (citing Kimura, col. 5, l. 29). The Examiner finds
that the flaring of the light in the X-axis direction, as depicted in Fig. 3b of
Kimura, ensures that the emitted light undergoes at least one internal
reflection, and does not follow a zero-mode path. Ans. 16.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. Claim 25
explicitly recites: “a barrier for blocking a zero mode path between the
emitter and the detector.” App. Br. 15. The plain language of the terms “a
barrier for blocking” indicates a physical object (a barrier) which blocks
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

7
(reflects) the light from the emitter and prevents it from following the zero-
mode path. Furthermore, reading the claim in light of Appellants’
Specification, the barriers are characterized as objects that act as physical
blocks to the passage of the emitted through the zero-mode path of the light
guide. For example, looking to Figure 3A of Appellants’ Specification:

APPELLANTS’ SPECIFICATION FIGURE 3A
Side view of a portion of one embodiment of a touch interface in
accordance with the claimed invention.

Barriers 140 and 142 are depicted as physically blocking the passage of the
emitted light 150 down the zero-mode path through the midline axis of the
light guide 112. Appellants Specification discloses that:
The barriers 140 and 142 prevent the zeroth mode (unreflected)
path for the electromagnetic signals from traveling between the
emitter 120 and detector 130. Consequently, the
electromagnetic signal following the path 150 to the detector
130 from the emitter 120 is the portion of the electromagnetic
signal that is both output by the emitter 120 and not blocked by
either the barrier 140 or 142.

Spec. 8.
By contrast, Kimura does not teach a physical barrier reflecting
emitted light from the zero-mode path, but rather a prism that refracts the
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

8
emitted light away from the zero-mode path so that it reflects from the walls
of the light guide at least once as it proceeds from emitter to detector.
Specifically, Kimura discloses that:
Since the refractive index of the light guide panel 101 is higher
than that of air, as shown by a solid line in FIG. 3B, the incident
light 203 to the inside of the light guide panel 101 propagates
from the side face 101ya to the side face 101yb while being
subjected to a total reflection between the front surface 101a
and the back surface 101b ….

Accordingly, the incident angle of the light 202 to the light
guide panel 101 becomes irregular and, as shown in FIG. 3B
with a solid line, the light 203 is subjected to a total reflection
with an irregular angle of reflection so that the light 203 is
reflected by the entire front surface 101a of the light guide
panel 101.

Kimura, cols. 5-6, ll. 62-8.
Refraction is not reflection. We find that Kimura discloses, not that
the emitted light is blocked from the zero-mode path by a barrier, but rather
that the emitted light is bent away from the zero-mode path by refraction
through the prism array. Consequently, we find that Kimura does not
disclose the limitation of claim 25 reciting “a barrier for blocking a zero
mode path between the emitter and the detector for the electromagnetic
signal, the zero mode path comprising a path without internal reflection”
and conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Kimura discloses that
limitation.
Because we are persuaded that Kimura does not disclose all of the
limitations of claim 25, as we have explained supra, we need not reach
Appellants’ other arguments. Consequently, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appeal 2011-000097
Application 10/991,668

9

Rejection of claims 10, 12-14, and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12-14, and 17-24 over the
combination of Kimura and Yu. App. Br. 6. Appellants and Examiner
make the same arguments and findings, respectively, with respect to claims
10, 12-14, and 17-24 as to the rejection of claims 25-33 supra. App. Br. 8;
Ans. 5. We have explained our reasons why we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of the latter claims, moreover, we have considered Yu, and find
that it does not overcome the deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings
described supra. We consequently reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 12-14, and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-33 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12-14, and 17-24 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD