Ex Parte Kravets et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 23, 2019

14978442 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/978,442 12/22/2015 60909 7590 01/25/2019 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 198 CHAMPION COURT SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709 Igor Kravets 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CD15063 2412 EXAMINER CHANG, KENT WU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2019 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): patents@cypress.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IGOR KRAVETS, ROMAN OGIRKO, HANS KLEIN, and OLEKSANDR HOSHTANAR Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-14, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from 1 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of Sept. 9, 2015. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code(Â§Â§ 102, 103) are applicable. See MPEP Â§ 2159.02 (9th ed. 2018) (the amended sections "apply to any patent application that contains ... a claimed invention that has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16, 2013." Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 consideration. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. 2, 3 We have jurisdiction under 3 5 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Appellants 'Invention The invention "relates generally to fingerprint sensing, and more particularly to the construction and use of a fingerprint sensing array." Spec. ,r 2. More specifically, the invention relates to differential capacitance measurement circuits and methods for measuring a capacitance in a half- bridge circuit comprising a first mutual capacitor and a second mutual capacitor coupled to a first input of an amplifier, and a listener electrode coupled to a second input of the amplifier. See Spec. ,r,r 5-7; Abstract. Representative Claims Independent claims 1 and 9, reproduced below, further illustrate the invention: 1. A differential capacitance measurement circuit compnsmg: a half-bridge circuit comprising a first mutual capacitor and a second mutual capacitor coupled to a first input of an amplifier; and 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Dec. 22, 2015 (claiming benefit of US 62/216,253 and US 62/216,241 both filed Sept. 9, 2015), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Aug. 21, 2017, Supplemental Appeal Brief ("Supp. Appeal Br.") filed Oct. 19, 2017, and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Apr. 5, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Dec. 20, 2016, and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Feb. 7, 2018. 3 Appellants' Appeal Brief lacks page numbers. We reference the Appeal Brief as if numbered sequentially beginning with the page having the "REAL PARTY IN INTEREST" heading numbered as page 2. 2 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 a listener electrode coupled to a second input of the amplifier. 9. A method for measuring a capacitance comprising: receiving a first signal derived from the capacitance on a receive node, the receive node coupled to a first input of an amplifier; receiving a second signal derived from a buried capacitance on the receive node; receiving a third signal on a listener electrode, the listener electrode coupled to a second input of the amplifier; generating a differential output of the amplifier; converting the differential output of the amplifier to a digital value representative of the capacitance. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Benkley, III (US 2013/0009651 Al, published Jan. 10, 2013) (hereinafter "Benkley 1"). See Final Act. 4--5. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1 and Benkley, III (US 2003/0035570 Al, published Feb. 20, 2003) (hereinafter "Benkley 2"). See Final Act. 5-8. 3. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1, Benkley 2, and Gozzini (US 8,115,497 B2, issued Feb. 14, 2012). See Final Act. 8-9. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1, Benkley 2, and Bird et al. (US 6,108,438, issued Aug. 22, 2000) (hereinafter "Bird"). See Final Act. 9-11. 3 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 5. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky et al. (US 2003/0035572 Al, published Feb. 20, 2003) (hereinafter "Kalnitsky"). See Final Act. 11-12. 6. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1, Kalnitsky, and Bird. See Final Act. 12-13. 7. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Benkley 1, Kalnitsky, and Benkley 2. See Final Act. 13- 14. ISSUES Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issues before us are as follows: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Benkley 1 discloses "a half- bridge circuit comprising a first mutual capacitor and a second mutual capacitor coupled to a first input of an amplifier," as recited in Appellants' claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky collectively would have taught or suggested "receiving a second signal derived from a buried capacitance on the receive node" as recited in Appellants' claim 9? ANALYSIS The 35 USCÂ§ 102 Rejection of Claims 1 and 8 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as anticipated by Benkley I. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2---6. The Examiner finds that Benkley 1 describes a half-bridge circuit including "a first mutual capacitor ([t]he 4 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 capacitance generated by 902n and 906n) and a second mutual capacitor ([t]he capacitance generated by [a second instance] ... of 902n and 906n) coupled to a first input of an amplifier (980, Fig. 9c )" (Final Act. 5). See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2---6 (citing Benkley 1, Fig. 9c). The Examiner explains that Benkley 1 describes the mutual capacitances ( first mutual capacitor and second mutual capacitor) as being "'coupled' to the input of [the] differential amplifier, albeit separately at different stages." Ans. 2. The Examiner further explains that Appellants' claim 1 does not require the mutual capacitors to be "'directly electrically coupled"' (Ans. 3}-the Examiner distinguishes "coupled" from "directly electrically coupled," i.e., simultaneously electrically connected. See Ans. 2-6. Appellants4 contend that Benkley 1 does not anticipate the disputed features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2---6. More specifically, Appellants contend that Benkley 1 "discloses neither a 'half-bridge circuit' nor a half-bridge circuit 'comprising a first mutual capacitor and a second mutual capacitor' as claimed" (Appeal Br. 11 (quoting claim 1)) because there is only one capacitance/capacitor coupled to the amplifier at any time -"[t]here are no other capacitances coupled to the input of differential amplifier 980. All other analog switches are opened and all other buffer power switches are coupled to ground" (Appeal Br. 13; see Appeal Br. 12- 13 (citing Benkley 1 Fig. 9c and ,r 122)). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 and Benkley 1 are unreasonable, and that the Examiner does not explain sufficiently how the cited portions of Benkley 1 disclose the disputed 4 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cypress Semiconductor Corp. Appeal Br. 4. 5 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 features-a first mutual capacitor and a second mutual capacitor coupled to an amplifier input. Benkley 1 explains that only one mutual capacitance is connected to the Differential Amplifier (980) through Buffer (982) and Analog Switch (930) at any one time. See Benkley 1 ,r 122; Fig. 9c. Appellants' Specification describes the "half-bridge circuit," as including "a first mutual capacitor" and "a second mutual capacitor" connected or "coupled" to a differential amplifier input at the same time. Spec. ,r 5; see Spec ,r,r 23-26. According to Appellants' Specification the half-bridge circuit includes matching mutual capacitances (capacitors) electrically connected to a differential amplifier input such that the circuit output is (ideally) zero. See Spec ,r,r 23-26. The Examiner does not interpret Appellants' claim 1 in view of Appellants' Specification, resulting in an unreasonably broad interpretation of the disputed claim limitation. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Benkley 1 anticipates Appellants' claim 1. Dependent claim 8 depends from and stands with claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8. The 35 USCÂ§ 103 Rejection of Claims 9 and 11-13 The Examiner rejects independent claim 9 as obvious in view of Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky. See Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 6-7. The Examiner finds that Benkley 1 does not describe a buried capacitance and relies, instead, on Kalnitsky as teaching "a buried capacitor plates system" (Final Act. 11). See Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 6-7 (citing Kalnitsky ,r,r 28, 44). Appellants contend that Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky do not describe the disputed features of claim 9-namely the buried capacitance. See Appeal Br. 13-18; Reply Br. 6-8. Appellants further contend the Specification (see 6 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 Spec. ,r 24) explains that a "buried capacitance" not only requires that the electrodes be "buried," but that the capacitance does not change due to an external influence. See Appeal Br. 13-18; Reply Br. 6-8 (citing Spec. ,r 24). We agree with the Appellants that the Specification defines the "buried capacitance" recited in Appellants' claim 9. When read in context with the claim language and Appellants' description of the circuit in the Specification (see Spec ,r,r 23-26), the buried capacitance must be arranged such that it does not change when a conductive object is placed near the electrode array-that is, in the vicinity of the buried electrodes that form the buried capacitance. Even if we were to accept the Examiner's definition of a buried capacitance-as reading on Kalnitsky's "dielectric-buried capacitor plates" (Ans. 6; see Final Act. 11-12 and Ans. 6-7 (citing Kalnitsky ,r 28, 44)), the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the buried capacitance/capacitor of Kalnitsky would have been incorporated with the circuit of Benkley 1 (see supra) to meet the disputed claim 9 features. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky renders obvious Appellants' independent claim 9. Dependent claims 11-13 depend from and stand with independent claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 11-13. The 35 USCÂ§ 103 Rejection of Claims 2-7, 10, and 14 The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2-7 as obvious in view of Benkley 1 in combination with additional references ( claims 2 and 3 are rejected over Benkley 1, Benkley 2, and Bird; claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected over Benkley 1 and Benkley 2; and claim 5 is rejected over Benkley 1, 7 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 Benkley 2, and Gozzini). See Final Act. 5-11. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 10 and 14 over Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky in combination with additional references ( claim 10 is rejected over Benkley 1, Kalnitsky, and Bird; and claim 14 is rejected over Benkley 1, Kalnitsky, and Benkley 2). See Final Act. 12-14. With respect to claims 2-7 the Examiner relies on the same reasoning as claim 1 (supra). See Final Act. 5-11. The Examiner does not address, in the Examiner's Answer, Appellants' arguments with respect to these dependent claims. See Ans. 2-7; Appeal Br. 19-21. Based on the Examiner's improper interpretation of claim 1 (supra), we find the Examiner does not explain in sufficient detail how the additional cited references overcome or cure the aforementioned deficiency of Benkley 1. With respect to claims 10 and 14 the Examiner relies on the same reasoning as claim 9 (supra). See Final Act. 12-14. The Examiner does not address, in the Examiner's Answer, Appellants' arguments with respect to these dependent claims. See Ans. 2-7; Appeal Br. 18-19. The Examiner has not established on this record that the additional cited references overcome or cure the aforementioned deficiency of the Benkley 1 and Kalnitsky combination. CONCLUSIONS Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l). Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2- 7 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 8 Appeal2018-004796 Application 14/978,442 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14. REVERSED 9