Ex Parte Lowles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

11944482 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111944,482 11123/2007
94149 7590 10/25/2016
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ROBERT LOWLES
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.
29717-0869001 5454
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LOWLES, ZHONGMING MA,
and EDWARD HUI
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 14--23.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Research In Motion
Limited. App. Br. 1.
2 The Examiner indicates on the summary page of the Final Action that
claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 14--21 are pending and rejected. In the Detailed
Action section, however, the Examiner states that claims 22 and 23 are also
pending (Final Act 2), and the Examiner rejects them under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (id. at 3). We conclude that the Examiner intended to include
claims 22 and 23 on the summary page and consider their inadvertent
omission harmless error.
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellants' invention relates to touch sensors for display screens.
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with the disputed
limitation italicized:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a touch sensor comprising an elongate input pad of
transparent conductive material to provide an input pad
capacitance value that varies with location of a touch over the
elongate input pad;
a cover comprising an elongate ridge for guiding the touch
to the side of the elongate ridge and over the elongate input pad,
wherein the elongate input pad does not extend under the
elongate ridge.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Geaghan (US 2008/0252608 Al;
published Oct. 16, 2008) and Sakai et al. (US 2007/0229465 Al; published
Oct. 4, 2007) ("Sakai").
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, 14--17, and 203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Geaghan, Sakai, and
Philipp (US 2007/0247443 Al; published Oct. 25, 2007).
3 The Examiner did not include claim 20 in the statement of the rejection,
but discussed claim 20 in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 5, 11-12.
Based on that discussion, we conclude that the Examiner intended to include
claim 20 in the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection and consider its inadvertent
omission from the statement of the rejection harmless error.
2
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Geaghan, Sakai, and Philipp II et al.
(US 2007 /0279395 Al; Dec. 6, 2007) ("Philipp II").
Claims 1and21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Philipp and Sakai.
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error.
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 21-23
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Geaghan and
Sakai, the Examiner found that Geaghan teaches or suggests all of the
recited limitations, except "a cover comprising one or more elongate ridges
for guiding the touch to the side of at least one of the one or more elongate
ridges and over the input pad, wherein the elongate input pad does not
extend under the elongate ridge," for which the Examiner relied on Sakai.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Sakai Figs. 1-2, i-fi-137, 40--42). The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
combine the raised ridges of Sakai with the elongated capacitive touchpad of
Geaghan by placing the ridges along the lengths next to the adjacent pairs of
unit pads to guide the user along a single coupled pair or multiple coupled
pairs to produce a more accurate measurement of input. Id. at 4 (citing
Sakai ,-r 42).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because neither the cited
portions of Geaghan nor the cited portions of Sakai teach the recited "cover"
limitation, shown in italics above. App. Br. 4---6. In particular, Appellants
3
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
argue that Sakai does not describe the claimed relationship between an input
pad and a ridge. Id. at 6. In Appellants view, "[ w ]hen all of the cited
references fail to teach a claim element, the claim is not obvious." Id. at 12.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellants attack the references individually, even though the Examiner
relies on the combination of Geaghan and Sakai as teaching or suggesting
the disputed features. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art."). Appellants have not
persuasively explained why the combination of references proposed by the
Examiner would not have suggested the disputed limitation to an artisan of
ordinary skill.
Appellants also question the sufficiency of the Examiner's proposed
reason for combining the teachings of Geaghan and Sakai. App. Br. 4. In
particular, Appellants argue that paragraph 42 of Sakai, cited by the
Examiner, does not pertain to producing a more accurate measurement of
input. Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. In the Answer, the
Examiner explained that all touchscreens have input pads and a cover. Ans.
24. Appellants have not disputed that finding. The Examiner also provided
persuasive articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for an artisan of
ordinary skill to have modified the cover of the touchscreen display of
Geaghan to use the tactile guides taught by Sakai. Id. Moreover, we
disagree with Appellants that paragraph 42 of Sakai does not address the
4
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
accuracy of user input. Sakai, in paragraph 42, teaches that, in Figures 1 and
2 of Sakai,
[T]he tactile dividers 224 or other contours are typically
configured to extend along the exterior surface 226 of the
screen cover 222 and along boundaries of the fixed number of
function buttons 130. As such, the tactile dividers 224
correspond with and identify boundaries of the function buttons
allowing a user to accurately identifY and select desired
function buttons 130.
Sakai i-f 42 (emphasis added).
Appellants next contend the combination of Geaghan and Sakai is
improper because it "would destroy, or at least drastically alter, the operation
of Geaghan, thereby frustrating its purpose." App. Br. 8. Specifically,
Appellants argue that "placing a ridge between adjacent electrodes of
Geaghan further separates a finger from the adjacent electrodes, making
simultaneous detection by both electrodes less likely because the ability of
the adjacent electrodes to detect a touch is reduced .... " Id.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner explained that
the rejection contemplates placing ridges along the gap in between two
coupled pairs of elongate ridges or on the boundaries of the display, which
would encourage the finger away from the gap between non-coupled
adjacent input pads towards the couple pairs. Ans. 33. Moreover, it would
have been within the skill of an ordinarily-skilled artisan to combine the
known technique of placing ridges as guides in a cover, as suggested by
Sakai, for use over a touchscreen having elongated pads, as taught by
Geaghan. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f
a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
5
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill" (citations omitted)). Appellants have not persuaded
us that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in
the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" at the time of
Appellant's invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Geaghan and Sakai teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1, or in concluding that claim 1 is obvious in view of the
combined references.
Regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the
combination of Philipp and Sakai, Appellants refer to and rely on the
arguments directed to the combination of Geaghan and Sakai, discussed
above. App. Br. 9-11. For the reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the
combination of Philipp and Sakai.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 21, which Appellants argue is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 9, 11. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10, 14--19, 22, and 23, for which Appellants make
no additional arguments. Id.
Claim 20
Appellants contend neither Geaghan nor Sakai, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests:
6
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
[A] cover comprising a ridge for guiding the touch to the
side of the ridge and over the input pad, wherein the ridge is
disposed between an edge of the input pad and a neighboring
edge of a second input pad and wherein the column of icons is
aligned with the ridge,
as recited in claim 20. App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue that Philipp
does not cure the deficiencies of Geaghan nor Sakai. However, Appellants'
arguments are conclusory, merely reciting the claim limitation, the teachings
of the references, and stating that the two are not the same. Id. Rule 41.37
"require[ s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art." In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
To the extent Appellants rely on the arguments made for claims 1 and
21, discussed above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection
of claim 20 for the reasons set forth above.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 20 and we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 20.
Claim 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 2,
which requires that the recited ridge be disposed between the first elongate
input pad and the second elongate input pad, because "placing a ridge at an
angle between any of Geaghan's adjacent electrodes results in a ridge that is
7
Appeal2015-000281
Application 11/944,482
neither horizontal nor vertical, resulting in distortion of information
displayed on the display." App. Br. 11.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Philipp reference, on which the Examiner also relied in rejecting claim 2.
Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 16-18. The Examiner explained that the elongate input
pads taught in Philipp are similar to those in Geaghan, except the pads are
right angle triangles. Id. at 16. The Examiner further found that combining
Sakai's perpendicular ridges with the right triangular elongate input pads of
Geaghan/Philipp would result in horizontal ridges that do not overlap the
right triangular elongate input pads of Geaghan/Philipp. Id. at 17.
Appellants present insufficient persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut
the Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 2.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 10,
and 14--23.
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
8