Ex Parte Konradi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13342658 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/342,658 01/03/2012 Vadim Konradi 1052-0104 8810
89320 7590 02/01/2017
Polansky & Associates, P.L.L.C.
12600 Hill Country Blvd
Suite R-275
Austin, TX 78738
EXAMINER
ONYEKABA, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
ppolansky@patentwerks.net
admin @ patent werks. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VADIM KONRADI, PARKER DORRIS,
MICHAEL FRANKLIN, and DAVID R. WELLAND
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,65 81
Technology Center 2600
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Silicon Laboratories Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to controllers for capacitive
touch screens. Spec. 12. According to the Specification, a capacitive touch
screen is formed by a grid of rows and columns of conductors in which the
rows and columns are separated by a dielectric material. Spec. 13. Possible
touch positions are represented by the intersections of the rows and columns.
Spec. 13. A touch is identified by detecting “small disturbances in
capacitance caused by the user’s finger touching the surface of the touch
screen.” Spec. 13. Further, according to the Specification, interference
from other nearby electrical circuits/signals may also affect the detected
capacitance and corrupt the touch position determination. Spec. 13.
The Specification describes the determination of a baseline
capacitance by measuring capacitance at each touch position on the touch
screen grid. See Spec. H 36—38. According to the Specification, the
baseline capacitance varies according to a scan frequency being used. Spec.
136. At start-up, a survey scan is performed to determine a baseline
measurement of interference as the scan frequency varies. Spec. 136.
Another type of scan—a panel scan—is used to determine one or more touch
locations. Spec. 137. According to the Specification, based on the
measured interference levels at different values of operational parameters
(e.g., scan frequency), operational parameters (including scan frequency) are
selected to perform the panel scan and improve the integrity of the touch
measurement. Spec. 138.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
2
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
1. A controller for a capacitive touch screen, comprising:
a touch resolve subsystem that, when activated, measures a
plurality of capacitance values using a plurality of input pins; and
a processor that uses said plurality of capacitance values at each
of a plurality of values of a parameter to create an interference map,
said interference map identifying a level of interference at each of said
plurality of values of said parameter, and said values vary over an
allowed range, and to select a desired value of said parameter based on
said interference map over said allowed range.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2011/0007028 Al; Jan. 13, 2011)
(“Curtis”); Olson (US 2012/0043970 Al; Feb. 23, 2012); and Krah (US
2008/0157893 Al; July 3, 2008). Final Act. 2-15.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis,
Olson, and Krah teaches or suggests “select[ing] a desired value of said
parameter based on said interference map over said allowed range,” as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis,
Olson, and Krah teaches or suggests selecting a desired scan frequency
“based on both said level of interference and scan frequency for each of a
plurality of scan frequencies,” as recited in claim 4?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis,
Olson, and Krah teaches or suggests a parameter comprising “a number of
scan pulses per scan line,” as recited in claim 6?
3
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis,
Olson, and Krah teaches or suggests a parameter indicating “whether to
implement a highpass filter in said touch resolve subsystem,” as recited in
claim 7?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis,
Olson, and Krah teaches or suggests “alternatively perform[ing] a survey
scan operation and a panel scan operation during normal operation,” as
recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1—3, 8, and 10—20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krah teaches
selecting a desired value of a parameter based on the interference map over
the allowed range of a parameter value. App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 1—5. In
particular, Appellants argue Krah, as relied upon by the Examiner, “relate[s]
to finding frequencies for the ‘frequency hopping table’, not to selecting a
desired frequency over the range of frequencies of the ‘frequency hopping
table’.” App. Br. 8. Appellants contend Krah discloses creating a frequency
hopping table (i.e., a list of acceptable values), but does not disclose
selecting a desired value over the range of values. App. Br. 9. Additionally,
Appellants assert the Examiner fails to give weight to the word “over” as
recited in the claim. Reply Br. 3. Appellants suggest the claimed invention
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 20, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 24, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on December 24, 2015
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on March 17,
2015, from which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
considers the whole range of values before selecting the desired value.
Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants assert the claimed invention can give a bias or
preference for one parameter setting as compared to another setting in the
case where the levels of interference are similar. Reply Br. 4.
As an initial matter, we note claim 1 does not require the processor to
give preference to one parameter setting over another when the measured
interference levels are similar. Rather, claim 1 merely recites, inter alia,
“select[ing] a desired value of said parameter based on said interference map
over said allowed range.” Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and, therefore, do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon
for patentability).
Further, we disagree with Appellants’ discussion of Figure 13 of
Krah. Figure 13 of Krah is illustrative and is reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
Set initial tuning
value
,-1300
I Measure noise level of
signal
I
Save noise level
and associate it wild
current tuning value
■1302
,—1304
1308
•i/
£
increment
tuning value
Last tuning
reached?
■1306 MO-*■—
YES
Find tuning values corresponding
to low noise levels and store them
In frequency hopping table
1310
1 ,-1312
bet frequency transfer function Y
smnv i \ /'
■1314
Fig. 13
Figure 13 of Krah is a flow chart for controlling the stimulation frequency to
avoid noise. Krah 128. As shown, the noise level of the result signal is
measured and saved (items 1302 and 1304) for a tuning value. These steps
are repeated until the noise level has been measured and saved for the last
tuning value (i.e., the end of the tuning range) (see items 1306 and 1308).
See Krah || 148—153. The frequency is not set (i.e., selected) until the noise
levels have been measured across the range of tuning values (item 1314).
6
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that “selecting a frequency from
an acceptable range of values corresponds to [the] claimed limitation with
respect to selecting a desired value.” Ans. 2—3 (emphasis omitted).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 11 and 18, which recite similar limitations and for which Appellants
advance similar arguments. See App. Br. 18—19. Additionally, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8—10, 12—17, 19, and 20, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 10, 18—19.
Claims 4 and 5
Claim 4 recites, in relevant part, “wherein said processor uses said
interference map to select said desired scan frequency based on both said
level of interference and scan frequency for each of a plurality of scan
frequencies.” Appellants assert that Olson, as relied upon by the Examiner,
discloses adjusting drive parameters (which may include a switched
capacitor frequency) to achieve a scan output within a desired window.
App. Br. 12 (citing Olson || 26, 27, and 31). Thus, Appellants argue, Olson
fails to teach selecting a parameter (e.g., scan frequency) based on both the
scan output and the parameter itself. App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner explains Figure 6 of Olson teaches a tuning
parameter which is adjusted by increasing or decreasing frequency based on
a comparison with a predetermined plurality of frequency ranges. Ans. 3^4.
Figure 6 of Olson is illustrative and is reproduced below.
7
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
Start
................*..........
Scar\,a.,Parameters ~ ;
Default
Scan Sensor
K
825
"OU1
■610
620
feO'O
Scan Ouput'''•■;
- #(fi Wtndowft^fgf.^--
Ho
821 635
jv'ss Sam Oulpuf > ' ' 7 ’ wo
Save Scan^p \ i
Parameters !
to Memory 67 D !
....... ............*.... "".... 1 1
6<4i) Reduce Seanw,w | fnsreaee ScanfiHV, j
Parameters Parameters 1
....... _ ...... *
650 ■ .J Scan Sensor
...!
i Scan Sensor
.1 ■■...... ■.......].....................
seo
655 • Scan Oupot No Soars Ouput No
Win(kwf;wcs7-.---'’'
fYss .............. Aes 685
/ Save Scanww /" Save Scan,w. \
B-Sl - ' -...2 Parameters ■ l Parameters i
to Memory 5, to Memory
681
FIGURE 8
Figure 6 of Olson illustrates a flowchart for automatically setting range
parameters in a capacitive sensing system. Olson 113. As shown,
ScanDRivE parameters are reduced or increased (items 640 and 670) when the
Scan Output is outside of the WindowRANGE (items 635, 655, and 685). If
the Scan Output is within the WindowRANGE, the parameters are saved and
the process stops (items 655, 685, 651, and 681).
8
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
The Examiner finds “by adjusting the tuning parameter range it is
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Olson is searching for a
particular range to select from, which corresponds to a desired scan
frequency based on level of interference and/or noise and scan frequency for
each plurality of frequencies.” Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellants that Olson teaches adjusting the parameter
(e.g., frequency) until a Scan Output is within a desired window. Thus, the
selection of the parameter (e.g., frequency) in Olson is based on the
measured noise level (i.e., Scan Output), without regard for the value of the
parameter (e.g., frequency) itself.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 or
that of claim 5, which depends therefrom.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites the “parameter comprises a number of scan pulses per
scan line.”
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner relies on Curtis as disclosing this
limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Curtis 129, Figs. 1 and 2). In particular, the
Examiner finds Curtis discloses conductive elements directly connected to a
port which may provide an interface to a touch controller. Final Act. 6. The
Examiner finds the conductive elements of Curtis teach the claims scan
lines. Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue:
Curtis does not provide scan pulses, but uses a different system.
Curtis measures a change in capacitance between crossing
conductors by measuring the frequency deviation of a relaxation
oscillator. Curtis’ conductors are not inputs and outputs but
9
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
rather two terminals of capacitors whose capacitance changes in
the presence of a touch.
App. Br. 14.
In response, the Examiner repeats the findings from the Final Action
and states “it is well known in the art to a person of ordinary skills that the
touch controller provides the on/off signal for each scan line which are scan
pulses.” Ans. 4.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive of Examiner error. Curtis
discloses a capacitive touch system wherein touches are detected by
measuring deviations of a frequency using a relaxation oscillator to drive an
oscillating signal onto the conductive elements. Curtis 4, 6. Curtis’
system is different from Appellants’ claimed system for detecting touch on a
touch panel display. Further, we find the Examiner has not provided
sufficient evidence or technical reasoning to support the finding that Curtis
teaches or suggests the “parameter comprises a number of scan pulses per
scan line,” as recited in claim 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7
Appellants contest the Examiner’s finding that Krah teaches a
parameter that indicates whether to implement a high pass filter in the touch
resolve subsystem, as required by claim 7. App. Br. 15—16. Appellants
contend Krah merely discloses changing the cutoff frequency of a high pass
filter, but that the identified filter is always present in Krah’s panel and is not
selectable. App. Br. 16 (citing Krah 1145, Fig. 5).
We agree with Appellants. The sections of Krah identified by the
Examiner disclose the resistive and capacitive properties of the layers of
10
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
touch sensitive panel. See Krah || 98—105, 145, Figs. 5 and 11. Figure 5 of
Krah illustrates the resistive and capacitive elements and the associated text
of Krah describes the arrangement as being known low pass and high pass
configurations. Krah 1102. The disclosed high pass filter is a product of
the properties of the layers of the panel and, C509 (see Krah, Fig. 5), which
forms the high pass filter, is the capacitance that is caused by the interactions
of the wires in the panel. Krah 1101. Thus, we agree with Appellants that
this high pass filter is hard-wired into the touch panel display and is not
selectable by a parameter.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Claim 9
Appellants contend none of the references (Curtis, Olson, or Krah)
discloses performing both panel scans and survey scans. App. Br. 16—18.
Appellants direct attention to the paragraph 29 of the Specification as
reciting:
MCU 500 uses the survey scan instructions to determine the
presence of signal interference in the touch screen and to
selectively change a parameter that is used to perform the panel
scan. MCU 500 uses the panel scan instructions to locate the
position of one or more fingers on the touch screen at a selected
value of the parameter.
App. Br. 17. Appellants assert that Figure 8 of Curtis illustrates a flow chart
of a method to detect a touch on a touch sensor. App. Br. 17—18.
Appellants argue this flow chart refers only to panel scan operations and not
survey scan operations. App. Br. 17—18.
In response, the Examiner finds Curtis discloses both panel scans and
noise frequency scans. Ans. 5 (citing Curtis 64—68). The Examiner
11
Appeal 2016-003599
Application 13/342,658
finds, particularly in light of paragraph 29 of Appellants’ Specification,
Curtis’ noise frequency scans correspond to the claimed survey scan
operation. Ans. 5. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
findings.
Further, as shown in Figure 8 of Curtis, Curtis teaches updating the
running baseline average when no touch has been detected and using the
updated baseline average in subsequent element scans to detect a touch on
the touch panel. See Curtis 60-62, Fig. 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3 and 8—20.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4—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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12