Ex Parte Salter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2016

13534126 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016)

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.
13/534,126 06/27/2012 Stuart C. Salter 83230868 6216
28415 7590 11/29/2016
PRICE HENEVELD LLP
FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
695 KENMOOR S.E.
P. O. BOX 2567
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501-2567
EXAMINER
STEPP JONES, SHAWNA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2016 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):
ptomail @priceheneveld.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART C. SALTER, PIETRO BUTTOLO, and
JEFFREY SINGER
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1,10, and 13 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
1. A proximity switch comprising:
a sensing pad; and
a proximity sensor disposed near a perimeter of the sensing pad
and generating an activation field proximate to the sensing pad, said
proximity sensor comprising first electrode fingers having multiple
lengths interdigitated with second electrode fingers having multiple
lengths, wherein differing spacings exist between adjacent first and
second electrode fingers.
10. A proximity switch comprising:
a sensing pad; and
a proximity sensor disposed substantially around a perimeter of
the sensing pad and comprising inner electrode fingers interdigitated
and electrically coupled to outer electrode fingers to generate an
activation field proximate to the sensing pad, wherein the inner and
outer electrode fingers each have different lengths and different
spacings exist between adjacent electrode fingers on one side of the
sensing pad as compared to another side of the sensing pad.
13. A lamp and proximity switch assembly comprising:
a lens having a transparent window
a light source disposed to illuminate light through the
transparent window of the lens; and
a proximity sensor disposed substantially around a perimeter of
the transparent window and generating an activation field proximate
to the transparent window, said proximity sensor comprising a
plurality of interdigitated electrode fingers having differing lengths
and spacings between adjacent electrode fingers.
2
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wnuk (US 6,774,505 Bl; Aug. 10,
2004) and ATMEL (Touch Sensors — Design Guide', Atmel Corporation;
Revision D - April 2009).1
Appellants ’ Contentions2
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellant submits that the first and second interdigitated
electrode fingers cited by the Examiner in ATMEL each have the
same length and have an equal spacing between adjacent
electrode fingers. In contrast, Appellant’s claimed invention
employs first electrode fingers having multiple lengths
interdigitated with second electrode fingers having multiple
lengths, wherein differing spacings exist between adjacent
electrode fingers. Appellant respectfully submits that ATMEL
at page 4-3 simply does not teach or even suggest first and second
interdigitated electrode fingers each having multiple lengths and
differing spacings between adjacent electrode fingers. Instead,
page 4-3 and FIG. 4-3 of ATMEL clearly shows interdigitated
fingers all having the same length and the same spacing
between adjacent electrode fingers, and section 4.2.2.5 merely
discusses optimizing SNR (signal to noise ratio) by maximizing
the coupling length.
App. Br. 9—10, emphasis added.
1 As to this rejection, our decision as to the rejection of claims 1,10, and 13
is determinative. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, the rejection
of claims 2—9, 11, 12, and 14—20, is not discussed further herein.
2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:3
Appellant submits that the first and second interdigitated
electrode fingers cited by the Examiner in ATMEL each have the
same length and have an equal spacing between adjacent
electrode fingers. In contrast, Appellant’s claimed invention
employs a proximity sensor disposed substantially around a
perimeter of the sensing pad and comprising inner electrode
fingers interdigitated and electrically coupled to outer electrode
fingers, the inner and outer electrode fingers each having
multiple lengths and different spacing between adjacent
electrode fingers on one side of the sensing pad as compared to
another side of the sensing pad. Appellant respectfully submits
that ATMEL at page 4-3 simply does not teach or even suggest
inner and outer interdigitated electrode fingers each having
multiple lengths and differing spacings between adjacent
electrode fingers. Instead, page 4-3 and FIG. 4-3 of ATMEL
clearly shows interdigitated fingers all having the same length
and the same spacing between adjacent electrode fingers, and
section 4.2.2.5 merely discusses optimizing SNR by maximizing
the coupling length.
App. Br. 14, emphasis added.
3. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellant submits that the interdigitated electrode fingers
cited by the Examiner in ATMEL each have the same length and
have an equal spacing between adjacent electrode fingers. In
contrast, Appellant’s claimed invention employs a lens, a light
source and a proximity sensor disposed substantially around a
perimeter of a transparent window of the lens, wherein the
proximity sensor comprises a plurality of interdigitated electrode
fingers having differing lengths and spacings between adjacent
3 As we discuss further infra, the argued language “multiple lengths” and
“differing spacings” is not recited in claim 10. Rather, claim 10 recites
“different lengths” and “different spacings.”
4
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
electrode fingers. Appellant respectfully submits that ATMEL
at page 4-3 simply does not teach or even suggest interdigitated
electrode fingers having differing lengths and spacings between
adjacent electrode fingers. Instead, page 4-3 and FIG. 4-3 of
ATMEL clearly shows interdigitated fingers all having the same
length and the same spacing between adjacent electrode fingers,
and section 4.2.2.5 merely discusses optimizing SNR by
maximizing the coupling length.
App. Br. 16—17, emphases added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1,10, and 13 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1 (covering claim 1), we agree-in-
part. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the claimed “multiple
lengths” is not shown in ATMEL, as its plural lengths are all the same
length. We disagree. Beyond implicitly arguing that “multiple” must be
construed as “differing,” Appellants present no arguments as to the meaning
of the term “multiple.” In our review, we are unable to find the term
“multiple” in Appellants’ disclosure as filed. Therefore, we turn to
dictionary definitions to construe this term. We find no definition that
supports Appellants’ position. Rather, we find the most relevant definition
to be “consisting of, having, or involving several or many individuals, parts,
5
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
elements, relations, etc.', manifold.”4 Based on this definition, we construe
the limitation of “multiple lengths” to merely require “plural lengths.” That
is, each claimed electrode finger has a length out of the plural lengths. We
find no restriction on the particular lengths based on the term “multiple.”
Rather, as in AMTEL, all the plural lengths may be the same value.
Further as to contention 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred
because the claimed “differing spacings” is not shown in ATMEL, as its
plural spacings are all the same (i.e., the same width). We agree.
As to Appellants’ above contention 2 (covering claim 10), Appellants
argue the Examiner erred because the claimed “multiple lengths” is not
shown in ATMEL, as its plural lengths are all the same length. Also,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the claimed “differing
spacings” is not shown in ATMEL, as its plural spacings are all the same
(i.e., the same width). As written, we find these arguments unhelpful as
neither term appears in claim 10. Rather, claim 10 recites “different
lengths” and “different spacings.” Therefore, using our discretion, we
substitute the actual terms of claim 10 into Appellants’ arguments in place of
“multiple lengths” and “differing spacings.” Read in this light, we agree
with both arguments.
As to Appellants’ above contention 3 (covering claim 13), Appellants
argue the Examiner erred because the claimed “differing lengths” is not
shown in ATMEL, as its plural lengths are all the same length. Also,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the claimed “differing
4 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Ed.
Unabridged; 1983; p. 1263.
6
Appeal 2015-006420
Application 13/534,126
spacings” is not shown in ATMEL, as its plural spacings are all the same
(i.e., the same width). We agree with both arguments.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants’ arguments and the Panel’s analysis have established
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7