Ex Parte ReynoldsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 8, 201613436207 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/436,207 03/30/2012 98024 7590 11/10/2016 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joseph Kurth REYNOLDS 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. SYNA/l 10040US02 2799 EXAMINER SHAH,SUJIT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/10/2016 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): P AIR_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 JOSEPH KURTH REYNOLDS Appeal 2015-003 231 Application 13/436,207 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2015-003231 Application 13/436,207 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An input device, comprising: a first substrate having a front surface and a rear surface, wherein the rear surface is on a side of the first substrate opposite to the front surface; a second substrate having a first surface; a plurality of sensor electrodes; and a sensor controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensor electrodes, wherein at least a substantial portion of the sensor controller and a portion of the plurality of sensor electrodes are disposed in a volume defined by a region of overlap between the rear surface of the first substrate and the first surface of the second substrate, and wherein the sensor controller is configured to receive resulting signals from the portion of the plurality of sensor electrodes and to transmit a processed signal to a first controller. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anno (US 2010/0085326 Al; Apr. 8, 2010), in view of Robrecht et al (US 2007 /0030254 Al; Feb. 8, 2007), and in further view of various combinations of Crandall et al (US Pub 2012/0293445 Al; Nov. 22, 2012), Saito et al. (US 2009/0315844 Al; Dec. 24, 2009), Hotelling et al. (US 2011/0050585 Al; Mar. 3, 2011), Kurashima (US 2011/0090159 Al; Apr. 21, 2011), and Sakai (US 2009/0213534 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). ANALYSIS Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 requires a sensor controller wherein at least a substantial portion of the sensor controller is disposed 2 Appeal2015-003231 Application 13/436,207 between a first substrate and a second substrate. Noting that the claims require only "a substantial portion" of the sensor controller to be disposed between a first and second substrate, the Examiner states that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes arrangements in which "pins of the sensor controller or the electrodes of the sensor controller are disposed between the two substrates instead of [the] actual body of the sensor controller." Final Act. 28. Applying that interpretation, the Examiner cites Anno's disclosures of a flexible printed circuit board ("PCB") that connects sensor electrodes to a touch control circuit, with a portion of the PCB disposed between a first and second substrate, in combination with Robrecht's disclosure of a sensor controller mounted "near the periphery" of a touch-panel input device. Final Act. 28-29. Appellants argue, and we agree, that nothing in the cited combination of references teaches or reasonably suggests a sensor controller arranged with at least a substantial portion of the sensor controller disposed between a first and second substrate. For example, neither Anno nor Robrecht discloses a controller disposed between two substrates, and we do not agree with the Examiner the sensor controller recited in claims 1, 14, and 20 would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of Anno, Robrecht, or the other references of record. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 20, as well as dependent claims 2-13, 15-19, and 21-28. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-28. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation