Ex Parte Davey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13630804 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/630,804 09/28/2012 Dennis Davey H0030678 (002.2637) 5864
89955 7590 08/24/2017
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
LAU, EDMOND C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2871
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS DAVEY, BRENT D. LARSON,
and STEVEN HAIM
Appeal 2016-007586
Application 13/630,804
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION JR, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—9 and 12—15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a touchscreen stack. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A touchscreen stack comprising:
a touchscreen;
a pixelated display layer, wherein each pixel has a
specific pixel pitch, the pixelated display layer having an
effective pixel profile with associated spatial harmonics; and
Appeal 2016-007586
Application 13/630,804
a diffuser with a scattering angle sized to band-limit the
spatial harmonics associated with the effective pixel profile
when disposed between the touchscreen and the pixelated
display layer at a separation distance from the pixelated display
layer, wherein the separation distance is equal to a function of
lateral displacement across the pixelated display layer divided
by a tangent of a scattering angle.
The References
Tang
Shutou
Larson
Kuze
Matsumoto (as translated)
The Rejections
US 2007/0018915 A1
US 2010/00238379 A1
US 2010/0302135 A1
US 2011/0128628 A1
JP 2010-17047 A
Jan. 25, 2007
Sep. 23,2010
Dec. 2, 2010
June 2, 2011
Aug. 5, 2010
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
12 and 15 over Matsumoto, claim 2 over Matsumoto in view of Tang,
claims 3—7 over Matsumoto in view of Tang and Shutou, claims 8 and 9
over Matsumoto in view of Kuze, and claims 13 and 14 over Matsumoto in
view of Larson.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections.
The Appellants argue the claims as a group (App. Br. 10-17).1 We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim. Claims 2—9 and 12—15 stand or fall with that claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Matsumoto discloses a touchscreen stack (input-capable display
device 100) comprising a touchscreen (second substrate 20), a filter
1 The Appellants’ argument regarding the rejections involving references
other than Matsumoto is that those references do not remedy the deficiency
in Matsumoto as to claim 1 (App. Br. 15—17).
2
Appeal 2016-007586
Application 13/630,804
layer (65) having a pitch corresponding to the pitch of pixels in an image
display area (110), and a diffuser (concave-convex shape 82) which is at a
separation distance from the filter layer (65) and scatters each pixel’s light
(1125, 28, 33, 34, 38; Figs. 2, 3). The degree of the diffuser (82)’s light
scattering and, consequently, the degree of image blurring, decrease as the
diffuser (82)’s surface roughness and distance from the filter layer (65)
decrease (H 40-49; Figs. 4, 5).
The Appellants assert that “[wjhile Matsumoto is understood to teach
that the irregularities 82 in first polarizing plate 80 provide a light diffusion
means (emphasis added, see [0034]), this does not disclose band-limiting the
spatial harmonics associated with an effective pixel profile, as recited in
Claim 1” (App. Br. 13).
‘“[DJuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re
Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Appellants’ Specification
states that “[t]he scattering angle 0n is small (i.e., on the order of a few
degrees) but large enough to suppress or reduce both the number and
amplitudes of the spatial harmonics associated with the effective pixel
profile (i.e., band-limit) when reproducing the input image and to suppress
spatial frequency harmonics, but still small enough to avoid substantial
degradation of the desired image content” (Spec. 120). Thus, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “band-limit”
consistent with the Specification is that it means using a scattering angle
which is small but sufficiently large to suppress or reduce the number and
amplitudes of the spatial harmonics associated with the effective pixel
3
Appeal 2016-007586
Application 13/630,804
profile without substantially degrading the image. Matsumoto’s disclosure
that by using low diffuser (82) unevenness and a small distance between the
diffuser (82) and the filter layer (65), the scattering angle can be sufficiently
small that the light is substantially straight, and by using a higher
diffuser (82) unevenness and a larger distance between the diffuser (82) and
the filter layer (65), the scattering angle and, consequently, the image
blurring, can be increased flflf 40-49), would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to use any scattering
angles within that range, including small scattering angles such as those used
by the Appellants for band limiting. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (in making an obviousness determination one “can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ”).
The Appellants argue that Matsumoto’s diffusion depends on not only
the unevenness of the diffuser (82), but also the distance between the
diffuser (82) and the filter layer (65) and that, therefore, “[i]t is not possible
to ascribe a characteristic scattering angle to the diffuser of Matsumoto”
(App. Br. 13-14).
That argument is not well taken because the Appellants’ light
scattering also depends upon that distance (claim 1; Spec. 119).
The Appellants assert that “Matsumoto paragraphs [0040] — [0042]
clearly show that the approach taught by Matsumoto is to address the
combination of shape 82 and shape 22, which implicitly involves additional
diffusion characteristics and separations” (App. Br. 13).
Matsumoto’s irregularities 22 are fingerprints, not a component which
functions in combination with the diffuser (82) (| 33).
4
Appeal 2016-007586
Application 13/630,804
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1,12 and 15 over
Matsumoto, claim 2 over Matsumoto in view of Tang, claims 3—7 over
Matsumoto in view of Tang and Shutou, claims 8 and 9 over Matsumoto in
view of Kuze, and claims 13 and 14 over Matsumoto in view of Larson are
affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5