Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2017

12783255 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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. 12/783,255 05/19/2010 Sae Rome Kim 1398-327 6297 (YPF201003-0014) 66547 7590 09/29/2017 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER CHANG, KENT WU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2017 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): pto @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAE ROME KIM, JONG RIM LEE, CHANG RYONG HEO, KYUNG MO PARK, CHUL JIN KIM, and SEONG JUN SONG Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12, and 13. App. Br. 2—3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) mailed June 18, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed November 24, 2014, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 9, 2015, and (4) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 9, 2015. Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention tracks a user’s input positions using electric field communication (EFC). Spec. 1:14—17. In particular, a plurality of electrodes measures the strength of an object’s electric field. Id. at 7:7—11. The system then compares these measurements and detects the input position from the comparison. Id. According to the Specification, Appellants’ system allows the user to control a display panel without touching it. See, e.g., id. at 9:11—20. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the limitation at issue: 1. An apparatus for detecting an input position using Electric Field Communication (EFC), comprising: a plurality of electrodes configured to measure a strength of input electric fields radiated from an object; and a controller configured to compare the strength of the input electric fields measured at each of the electrode to detect the input position, wherein the input electric fields are generated by a voltage supplied by an EFC transmitter which is connected to the object. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Hollingsworth Kaliher Nishimura et al. Chen et al. US 2005/0088416 Al US 2006/0202971 Al US 2007/0279399 Al US 2009/0207130 Al Apr. 28, 2005 Sept. 14, 2006 Dec. 6, 2007 Aug. 20, 2009 Claims 1, 4—8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaliher and Nishimura. Final Act. 2—5. 2 Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaliher, Nishimura, and Chen. Final Act. 5—6. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kaliher, Nishimura, and Hollingsworth. Final Act. 6—7. THE REJECTION OVER KALIHER AND NISHIMURA Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the input electric fields are generated by a voltage supplied by an EFC transmitter which is connected to the object.” Independent claim 8 recites a similar limitation. The claimed apparatus and method measure the fields’ strength to detect the input position. The Examiner finds that Kaliher teaches every limitation recited in independent claims 1 and 8 except for the EFC transmitter connected to the object, which supplies a voltage for generating the input electric fields. Final Act. 2—5. In concluding that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Nishimura as teaching the EFC transmitter. Id. at 3—5. Appellants contend that Nishimura lacks the recited EFC transmitter. App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 1—2. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner mischaracterizes how Nishimura’s transmitters operate. Reply Br. 2. We agree. To address the EFC transmitter missing from Kaliher, the Examiner finds that Nishimura’s transmitters generate a voltage to establish the measured input electric field. See Final Act. 3 (citing Nishimura Figs. 5, 7, transmitters 181, 183, and 185). The Examiner proposes including these transmitters in Kaliher’s conductive mass to create a stylus for detecting 3 Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 touch input. Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains that Nishimura’s “transmitters (through the ball structure), which are in the stylus, generate and detect an electric field.” Ans. 8. On the contrary, Nishimura’s ball generates the measured input electric field (Nishimura 1 58), and transmitters 181, 183, and 185 merely transmit information about that electric field to processor 50 {id. | 62). For example, Nishimura embeds electret 87 in ball 49 to generate an electrostatic field. See id. Tflf 58—59 (discussing various embodiments). Detectors 180, 182, and 184 sense the electric field. Id. 1 60. Nishimura couples transmitters 181, 183, and 185 to the detectors. Id. | 62. These transmitters send information to processor 50. Id. From this information, processor 50 can then generate navigation information for positioning an object on a display. Id. 178, Fig. 7. Nishimura also discloses a wireless transmitter 55 for transmitting signals to an external device. Id.^lS. One embodiment of Nishimura’s stylus is shown below in Figure 5. 4 Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 Nishimura’s Figure 5 shows a stylus having ball 49; electret 87; detectors 180,182, and 184; and transmitters 181,183, and 185. In sum, Nishimura measures the input electric field generated by ball 49, not an input field generated by transmitters 55, 181, 183, and 185. See id. 62—63, 78—85, Figs. 5, 7, cited in Final Act. 3. On this record, we agree with Appellants’ argument that Nishimura’s transmitters, unlike the claimed EFC transmitter, do not generate the recited voltage for the measured input electric field. App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 1—2. 5 Appeal 2015-006371 Application 12/783,255 Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, as well as dependent claims 4—7 and 10 for similar reasons. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 9, 12, and 13 for the reasons discussed above. The additional references, Chen and Hollingsworth, were not relied upon to teach the limitation missing from the Kaliher-Nishimura combination, and, thus, do not cure the combination’s deficiency. See Final Act. 5—7; Ans. 5—7. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—10, 12, and 13. REVERSED 6