Ex Parte Lillie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 3, 2017

13539145 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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. 13/539,145 06/29/2012 Jeffrey Lillie SYNA/l 10127US01 2406 98024 7590 03/07/2017 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER GYAWALI, BIPIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2017 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): PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY LILLIE, JOHN CHILDS, and CHRISTOPHER LUDDEN Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 Technology Center 2600 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—21, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 According to the Specification, the present invention relates to touch transmit signaling. See generally Spec. 2. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A display device having an integrated capacitive sensing device, the display device comprising: a plurality of transmitter electrodes disposed on a substrate within the display device, wherein the plurality of transmitter electrodes comprises a plurality of common electrodes configured to operate in a first mode for capacitive sensing and configured to operate in a second mode for updating to the display device; an addressable selection module coupled to the plurality of common electrodes, the addressable selection module having a shift register configured to, in response to receiving a logic signal comprising gate addresses, select from the plurality of transmitter electrodes a group of non sequential transmitter electrodes to operate in the first mode and be simultaneously driven for capacitive sensing; and a receiver module coupled to a plurality of receiver electrodes, the receiver module configured to receive a resulting signal while the transmitter electrodes are driven for capacitive sensing. References and Rejections Claims 1, 3—6, 9-12, 14—19, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 2010/0295804 Al; Nov. 25, 2010) and Park (US 2011/0102389 Al; May 5, 2011). Claims 7—8, 13, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeuchi, Park, and Reeves (US 2013/0080759 Al; Mar. 28, 2013). ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this 2 Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.1 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. I Appellants contend Takeuchi and Park do not collectively teach “select from the plurality of transmitter electrodes a group of nonsequential transmitter electrodes to operate in the first mode and be simultaneously driven for capacitive sensing,” as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 7—14; Reply Br. 2—\. In particular, Appellants assert “Park fails to teach that the non-sequential transmitter electrodes be driven simultaneously for capacitive sensing. Rather, Park actually describes the progress scan method and the interlace scan method are both techniques for sequential driving.” App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 8, 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue neither Takeuchi nor Park alone teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Reply Br. 3. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Takeuchi and Park to teach the disputed claim limitation, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking Park or Takeuchi individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Takeuchi teaches “select from the plurality of transmitter electrodes a group of. . . 1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 transmitter electrodes to operate in the first mode and be simultaneously driven for capacitive sensing” (emphasis added). See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Park teaches “a group of nonsequential transmitter electrodes to operate in [a] mode and be . . . driven” (emphasis added). See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3^4. Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds Takeuchi and Park collectively teach “select from the plurality of transmitter electrodes a group of nonsequential transmitter electrodes to operate in the first mode and be simultaneously driven for capacitive sensing,” as required by claim 1 (emphases added). We will discuss the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed combination below. II Appellants argue “it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cited references of record.” App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants assert: [T]he Examiner’s proposed combination of Takeuchi and Park would change the principle of operation of the Park reference. If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959). In this case, the proposed modification to Park would changes the principle of operation from sequential driving to “non sequential” driving, which would require substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in Park and a change in the basic principle under which Park was designed to operate. 4 Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 App. Br. 14. Appellants contend the Examiner improperly considers the terms in isolation, and fails to consider the claim as a whole. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants have not shown Examiner error. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418-19. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner has considered the claim as a whole, and provided articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Takeuchi’s device to incorporate the teachings of Park. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner determines one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Takeuchi and Park to achieve the “benefits of interlace driving, such as to reduce power consumption by not having to drive all the electrodes in every frame.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Appellants do not persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect. Appellants’ assertion that “the Examiner’s proposed combination of Takeuchi and Park would change the principle of operation of the Park reference” (App. Br. 14) is not directed to the Examiner’s proposed combination, as the Examiner modifies Takeuchi’s device to incorporate Park’s teachings. Further, Appellants’ assertion that “even if such a 5 Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 combination were proper, the proposed modification of Takeuchi in view of Park would not yield the present invention . . . one skilled in the art. . . would integrate the odd-rows-only then even-rows-only approach (from Park) with driving electrodes 43 (from Takeuchi)” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2) ignores the undisputed finding that Takeuchi teaches “select from the plurality of transmitter electrodes a group of. . . transmitter electrodes to operate in the first mode and be simultaneously driven for capacitive sensing” (emphasis added) (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4). The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying Park’s technique in Takeuchi’s device would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Final Act. 5; Ans. 5. Ill In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants belatedly argue the Examiner’s proposed combination would have changed the principle of operation of Takeuchi. See Reply Br. 4. Appellants have waived such 6 Appeal 2016-008052 Application 13/539,145 arguments because they are untimely, and Appellants have not demonstrated any “good cause” for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 17 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 3—6, 9, 11, 12, 14—16, 18, 19, and 21, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments for those claims. We further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 7, 8, 13, and 20, as Appellants merely assert “Reeves does not bridge the gap between Takeuchi and Park and the invention of independent claims[.]” App. Br. 14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—21. 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 7