Ex Parte Prabhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12782494 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121782,494 05/18/2010 KRISHNANAND PRABHU
32968 7590 03/08/2016
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
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.
UTL 01020 4782
EXAMINER
SADIO,INSA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNANAND PRABHU and
JAGADISH V ASUDEV A SINGH
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Kyocera Corporation as the real party in interest.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed May 18, 2010 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed March 29, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 22, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Feb. 21,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed April 21, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to touch screen power generation. (Spec.
Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A power-generating touch screen comprising:
a piezoelectric transducer array (PET A) layer comprising
a plurality of piezoelectric transducer (PET) elements; and
a capacitor array layer coupled to the PETA layer, the
capacitor array layer comprising a plurality of capacitors, the
PET A layer configured to provide a charge to the capacitors of
the capacitor array layer when a force is applied to the PET A
layer.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based
on Faubert (US 2009/0267892 Al; Oct. 29, 2009). (Final Act. 3-5).
Claims 5-12 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Faubert and Henty (US 5,838, 138; Nov. 17, 1998). (Final Act. 5-9).
ANALYSIS
§ 102(e) - Claims 1-4, 13, and 14
Regarding independent claims 1, 4, and 13, Appellants argue Faubert
does not disclose a touch screen comprising a capacitor array layer coupled
to a PETA layer as claimed. (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2--4). Specifically,
Appellants argue: (1) the claimed "touch screen" is distinct from Faubert' s
"touch pad"; and (2) Faubert fails to disclose the claimed "capacitor array
layer." (Id.) We address each of these arguments below.
2
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
Touch Screen versus Touch Pad
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret
Faubert's "touch pad" as the recited "touch screen" because the latter
involves a display and the former does not. 3 (App. Br. 8). Accordingly,
Appellants argue, the claimed "touch screen" distinguishes over Faubert.
We disagree with Appellants' argument. As the Examiner notes,
Faubert discloses that the touchpad 24B may include a liquid crystal display
(LCD) that can show various images of the virtual keys. (Ans. 2 citing
Faubert i-f 77). Faubert also discloses the touchpad 24B has capacitive
circuits which allow it to detect when an external "finger" is touching its
surface by analyzing output signals. (Faubert i-f 78). Faubert discloses, for a
given key, piezoelectric transducer assembly 402 or 502 is provided under
touchpad 24B. (Faubert i-fi-178, 79). Thus, Faubert discloses arrays of
piezoelectric transducers. Faubert also discloses capacitors 706, 712
associated with a piezoelectric transducer 404/504. (Faubert Fig. 7). Thus,
Faubert discloses arrays of capacitors. Faubert discloses its piezoelectric
transducer assemblies 402 or 502 may be incorporated under other
3 We note, although the preamble of claim 1 recites a "touch screen," the
body of the claim does not recite any structure corresponding to a "display"
or otherwise refer to the preamble. Thus, Appellants' argument that the
"touch screen" recited in the preamble differentiates the invention of claim 1
from Faubert's touchpad 24B presumes a touch screen includes a display
and further assumes the preamble is entitled to patentable weight. Because
we agree with the Examiner in finding the prior art teaches or suggests a
touch screen including a display, we need not and do not address whether
the touch screen recited in the preamble has limiting effect or, instead,
"merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the
claim that completely set forth the invention." See IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas
Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed.Cir.2000).
3
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
components of device 10, such as display 14. (Faubert if 93). In addition,
Faubert discloses its components, including piezoelectric transducers 402
and 502, are mounted on a printed circuit board (PCB). (Faubert iii! 42, 78,
83-85, 91). The capacitors 706, 712 are connected to the piezoelectric
transducers 404/504 and thus it is reasonable to assume they are proximate
to the transducers and are likewise mounted on the PCB in a layer. The
transducers 402 and 502 are mounted on respective posts 406, 506 in a layer
above the PCB 408 (see Faubert Figs. 4A--4C and 5A-5C).
To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose every claimed
element in a single reference arranged as in the claim, but this is not an
ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing
Akzo N. V. v. United States Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 (Fed.
Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 909 (1987)); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Appellants' Specification provides at most examples,
but no limiting definition, of the "screen" component of a touch screen.
Although Faubert may not refer to its arrangement as a "touch screen," it has
similar characteristics. Specifically, Faubert discloses touchpad 24B with
capacitive circuits to sense touch. (See Faubert if 76, 78). Thus, we find the
Examiner broadly but reasonably construed the recited "touch screen" to
encompass Faubert's "touchpad." See Ans. 2 ("One of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize that touchscreen and touchpads can be broadly
interpreted to be the same thing, and are often used interchangeably.").
Further, according to Appellants' proffered definition: "a touchscreen
is an electronic visual display that the user can control through simple or
multi-touch gestures by touching the screen with one or more fingers", i.e., a
display that can be touched to input data. (App. Br. 8 citing definition of
4
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
"touch screen" from wikipedia.org). Faubert's arrangement of a touchpad
24B with capacitive circuits, piezoelectric transducers, and LCD display,
satisfies this definition. (See Faubert i-fi-176-78). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Faubert discloses the claimed
limitation, and we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion.
Capacitor Array Layer
Appellants contend that Faubert's touchpad 24B is not comprised of a
capacitor array layer as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend
there is no disclosure in Faubert that touchpad 24B comprises capacitors
706, 712 of Fig. 7, and is silent on where these circuits may be located in
electronic device 10. (Id.). Appellants contend the circuit 700, comprising
capacitors 706, 712, is part of feedback module 70, and is distinct from
touchpad 24B. (Id.). Accordingly, Appellants conclude Faubert does not
disclose a power-generating touch screen comprising a capacitor array layer
as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner states there is no claimed structure detailing the
connection between the touchscreen and the capacitor layer, and that, under
broadest reasonable interpretation, the touchpad device of Faubert can
include both touchpad 24B and feedback module 70. (Ans. 2-3; see also
Faubert i157). The Examiner explains that Faubert's Figure 7 shows the
relationship between transducers 404/504 and capacitor 712, and finds that
the feedback module 70 is a sub-system of the touchpad 24B. (Id.). The
Examiner concludes that "[ s ]imply because Faubert decided to denote a
separation between the circuit that receives the touch 'Touchpad 24B' and
the circuit that collects the energy 'Feedback Module 70' doesn't mean that
5
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
the combination of 24B and 70 can't be considered to be a single 'power-
generating touch screen' as the claims require." (Id.).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. Appellants'
arguments concerning where the capacitors are located in Faubert's device
are not commensurate in scope with the claims that merely require the
power-generating touchscreen has a PETA layer coupled to a capacitor array
layer. No particular arrangement or orientation of the PETA layer relative to
the capacitor array layer is recited in the claims, nor do the claims require
these layers to be integrated together, as Appellants' argument seems to
suggest. Accordingly, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Furthermore, as previously noted, anticipation is not an ipsissimis
verbis test. See Bond, Akzo, Gleave, supra. The Examiner finds the
touchpad 24B and feedback module 70 together disclose the argued power-
generating touch screen comprising a PET A layer coupled to a capacitor
array layer. (See Ans. 2-3 citing Faubert Figures 2, 4, 5, and 7). Although
the touch pad 24B and feedback module 70 are not collectively referred to as
a "power-generating touch screen" in Faubert, we agree with the Examiner
that this is effectively what they are. Thus, we adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusion, and we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the
rejection.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2, 3, and
14 and therefore we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated.
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2014-005974
Application 12/782,494
§ 103(a)-Claims 5-12and15-21
Appellants present no arguments against the rejection of claims 5-12
and 15-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Faubert and Henty.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
based on Faubert is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5-12 and 15-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Faubert and Henty is summarily affirmed.
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