Ex Parte Elias

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2017

12333793 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 12/333,793 12/12/2008 John Greer ELIAS 106842026700 (P6642US2) 7037 69753 7590 03/29/2017 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 EXAMINER BENLAGSIR, AMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): EOfficeL A @ mofo. com PatentDocket @ mofo. com pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN GREER ELIAS Appeal 2016-005340 Application 12/333,793 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to: [A] touch sensitive mechanical keyboard [which] enables a standard look and feel mechanical keyboard to sense fine hand/fmger motion over the surface of the keys such that command and cursor input (e.g., pointing and gestures) can be received from the user without requiring the user to move the users hand off the keyboard. Appeal 2016-005340 Application 12/333,793 Fine hand/fmger motion detection can be enabled by embedding clusters of capacitive sensors near the surface of the keyboard’s keys. The touch sensitive mechanical keyboard can operate in two or more modes - e.g., a typing mode and a mouse mode - and operating the keyboard in mouse mode or switching between the modes can be facilitated by holding (depressing and holding) or tapping (depressing and releasing) arbitrary combinations of keys, or by detecting the number of fingers touching the touch sensitive mechanical keyboard. Specification 3. Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. An input device comprising: multiple mechanical keys; and clusters of capacitive touch sensor nodes, wherein each of the keys is associated with one of the clusters of capacitive touch sensor nodes to form a touch sensitive area across the keys, and each cluster is capable of determining a position of a contact on a surface of an associated key. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1,3,4, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0091536 Al, Apr. 9, 2009). Final Rejection 5—8. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan and Hotelling (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0006453 Al; published Jan. 10, 2008). Final Rejection 8—10. Claims 6—11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan and Lainonen (US Patent Application 2 Appeal 2016-005340 Application 12/333,793 Publication Number 2009/0002199 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009). Final Rejection 10—14. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan and Herron (US Patent Number 4,417,294; issued Nov. 22, 1983). Final Rejection 14—15. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan and Mato, Jr. (US Patent Number 6,204,839 Bl; published Mar. 20, 2001). Final Rejection 15. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan and Ogihara (US Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0152975 Al; published July 5, 2007). Final Rejection 15—17. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan, Ogihara, and Hotelling. Final Rejection 18—20. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Callaghan, Ogihara, and Lainonen. Final Rejection 21. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 14, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed April 25, 2016), the Answer (mailed Feb. 24, 2016), and the Final Rejection (mailed Nov. 3, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the 3 Appeal 2016-005340 Application 12/333,793 Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellant contends “the Examiner has identified the primary difference between Callaghan and the pending claims, which require that each key is associated with a cluster of touch sensor nodes and not a single sensor as taught by Callaghan” and “because Callaghan only discloses a single sensor node per key, Callaghan is incapable of ‘determining a position of a contact on a surface of an associated key’” as claimed. Appeal Brief 3. Appellant argues: The Office Action cites paragraph [0039] of Callaghan which discloses “layering two differently designed switches” (see Office Action, page 3). However, these switches are designed to detect “key travel,” i.e., the distance of depression when the key is pressed. In contrast, the claims require clusters that determine surface position of a contact on a key. Appeal Brief 4. The Examiner finds Callaghan discloses in paragraphs 5, 31, 42, 43, and figures 4 and 7 that the device “is capable of determining a position of a contact on a surface of an associated key.” Final Rejection 6. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s specific findings. Appellant further argues: [T]he Office Action cites paragraph [0042] and Figure 7 of Callaghan, which show “an array of sensors 720,” and the Office Action argues that “the term cluster is technically equivalent to an array or group” (see Office Action, page 4). However, whereas Callaghan discloses a single array of sensors 720, the claims require a plurality of clusters. Appeal Brief 4. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The employment of arrays of sensors, or clusters, would have been obvious to one of ordinary 4 Appeal 2016-005340 Application 12/333,793 skill in the art considering Callaghan discloses using an array of sensors in association with a key pad.1 See Final Action 4. Additionally, Appellant has not shown how or why the claimed “clusters” of sensors reasonably preclude the multiple sensors of Callaghan. See Callaghan paragraphs 42— 43. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 3—20 are 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v). AFFIRMED 1 “It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (1960). 5