Ex Parte Reynolds

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2016

13436207 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016)

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