Ex Parte SHAHPARNIA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 13, 2019

13830127 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/830, 127 03/14/2013 69753 7590 03/15/2019 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Shahrooz SHAHPARNIA 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. 106842060300 (Pl 8179US 1) CONFIRMATION NO. 2709 EXAMINER MUMMALANENI, MRUNALINI YERNENI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER OPLA NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2019 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): EOfficeLA@mofo.com PatentDocket@mofo.com pair_mofo@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHAHROOZ SHARP ARNIA, KEVIN J. WHITE, and MANU AGARWAL Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830,127 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "[a] stylus signal detection technique and apparatus that can facilitate synchronous demodulation on a touch input device." Spec. ,r 4. Appellants' Specification explains "a stylus signal can be detected and [a] detector can estimate the start and end time of the stylus signal. The estimated start and end time of the stylus signal can then be used to generate a window to be used by a digital demodulator to effectively and efficiently demodulate the stylus signal." Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A stylus detection apparatus for detecting an asynchronous active stylus, the apparatus comprising: a plurality of sense channels, each sense channel including an amplifier, wherein the plurality of sense channels are configured to sense signals at a plurality of electrodes of a touch sensor panel, the signals including one or more stylus signals generated by the asynchronous active stylus; a channel aggregator coupled to receive outputs of the plurality of sense channels and configured to generate one or more aggregated signals based on combinations of the outputs of the plurality of sense channels; and one or more stylus signal detectors, each stylus signal detector configured to: receive one of the aggregated signals from the channel aggregator; detect one of the stylus signals based on the received aggregated signal; and estimate a start time and an end time for the detected stylus signal. 2 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Zachut US 2010/0155152 Al June 24, 2010 Oda et al. US 2010/0321315 Al Dec. 23, 2010 Krah et al. US 2011/0025634 Al Feb. 3, 2011 Christiansson et al. US 2012/0212441 Al Aug.23,2012 Singh et al. US 2014/0071082 Al Mar. 13, 2014 Rejections Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zachut, Krah, and Christiansson. Final Act. 3-7. Claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zachut, Krah, Christiansson, and Oda. Final Act. 8-11. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zachut, Krah, Christiansson, Oda, and Singh. Final Act. 11-12. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 8, and 15 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 15 because the combination of Zachut and Krah is improper. App. Br. 6-16; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue "[a] POSITA (person of ordinary skill in the art) would not arrive at the [Examiner's] proposed combination of Zachut and Krah based on the provided motivations." App. 3 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, "[t]he proposed combination displaces Zachut's differential analog front end and duplicates its function with a single-ended analog front end." App. Br. 10. Appellants argue "[a] POSITA would at best be motivated [to] replace Zachut's differential front end with Krah's single-ended front end to achieve the [Examiner's] suggested benefit of Krah (to be unaffected by the change in Cstray [stray capacitance])." App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue "[a] POSIT A would not duplicate the analog front end function of Zachut by adding another analog front end- Krah' s virtual ground amplifier - to Zachut's device." App. Br. 11. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Zachut teaches using a single input amplifier to amplify the signal received from the conductive lines ( e.g., sense channels) and subsequently using software to determine a difference signal. Ans. 3 ( citing Zachut ,r 98). We also agree with the Examiner that Krah teaches providing each sense channel with an amplifier to nullify stray capacitance present at the intersection of row and column electrodes in a capacitive touch panel. Ans. 4 (citing Krah i-fi-f31, 34, 36, 37, 41; Figs. 3A---C). The Examiner concludes: It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use the amplifier of Krah's sense channels for each electrode output before aggregating the signals in the differential stage of Zachut to compensate for effects of varying parasitic/stray capacitance and impedances of individual electrode sense channels so that even with a hand over the touch sensor panel, although Cstray can increase, the output will be unaffected by the change in Cstray as discussed by Krah (see for example, Krah, ,r [0037]), and using a known sense channel and 4 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 amplifier circuit to improve a similar sensing circuit would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. Ans. 4. The Examiner's findings and conclusions are unrebutted by Appellants. See Reply Br. 2. To the extent Appellants argue that the Examiner's findings constitute a new ground of rejection (Reply Br. 2), we do not decide this issue herein because a request to review the Examiner's failure to designate a rejection in the Examiner's Answer as a new ground of rejection is a petitionable matter under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 181 to the Director of the USPTO. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.40; see also MPEP Â§ 1002.02(c)(6). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15; and claims 25-27, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 and are not separately argued with particularity. Claims 2, 9, and 16 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 9, and 16 because the combination of Zachut, Krah, Christiansson, and Oda is improper. App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 3---6. Appellants argue modifying the device of Zachut with the teachings of Oda would render Zachut unsuitable for its intended purpose because modifying Zachut's differential amplifier with Oda's amplifier, as proposed by the Examiner, would prevent Zachut's device from detecting a stylus. App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Zachut and Oda because: (1) "Oda' s system detects passive touches not an active stylus like Zachut"; (2) "Oda's system provides a four- input differential amplifier in conjunction with generating stimulation on four corresponding sense lines, whereas Zachut's stylus detection requires 5 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 external stimulation"; and (3) "Oda's system senses adjacent lines whereas Zachut's system expressly does not." App. Br. 18. Additionally, Appellants argue: Moreover, the cited motivation - "to enhance the noise resisting property of the receiver" - is a benefit attributed to a differential amplifier, not to summing two of a plurality of signals. Zachut's differential amplifier already provides the noise resisting property. Thus, the stated motivation would not lead a POSIT A to replace Zachut's differential amplifier with Oda's differential amplifier when the stated benefit is already present without the combination. App. Br. 18. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds: Zachut teaches coarse detection and fine detection stages of stylus location determination. Specifically, Zachut uses differential amplification involving non-adjacent electrodes during stylus coarse detection and changes over to different paths of signals from various groups of electrodes during fine detection (see for example, Zachut: ,r [0096], [0098], [0101]-[0106]) wherein the sensor lines around the sensor line that detected touch during coarse detection mode are selected (Zachut, ,r [0106]). Therefore, Zachut not only teaches touch detection using non-adjacent electrodes during coarse scanning, but also teaches fine-tuning the location using adjacent electrodes during fine detection. Ans. 11. However, we agree with Appellants, "Zachut never suggests stylus signal detection using adjacent sense lines coupled to a single amplifier, whether in the course or fine detection mode." Reply Br. 3 ( citing Zachut ,r 98). As noted by Appellants, "Zachut's coarse and fine detection modes refer to the detection and time alignment of an asynchronous stylus." Reply Br. 3; Zachut ,r,r 104--106. We also agree with Appellants, that Zachut teaches that stylus detection is performed using two parallel sensor lines 6 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 "that are close but not adjacent to one another [and] are connected respectively to the positive input 311 and negative input 321 of a differential amplifier 340." Reply Br. 3; Zachut ,r 98. Oda teaches signal detection using four, adjacent reception conductors (e.g., sense lines) connected to a differential amplifier. Oda ,r,r 256, 261. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Obviousness cannot be established "by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex. Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ( quoting In re Kahn, 441 F .3d 988). Because Oda teaches the use of adjacent sense lines while Zachut teaches the use of non-adjacent sense lines, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Zachut with the teachings of Oda. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's final conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants' invention to combine the teachings of Zachut and Oda. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16. While not specifically argued together, claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-21 depend, directly or indirectly from claims 2, 9, and 16, and the rejections of these claims are based on the combination of Zachut and Oda. Because the rejection of claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-21 are also based on the combination 7 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 of Zachut and Oda, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Because we find this issue do be dispositive as to the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, we do not reach the issues raised by Appellants' contentions regarding claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 21. Claims 22-24 Appellants argue claims 22-24 together as a group. See App. Br. 23- 25. We select claim 22 as representative. Accordingly, claims 23 and 24 stand or fall with claim 22. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend the combination of Zachut, Krah, and Christiansson fails to teach or suggest "wherein at least one of the one or more aggregated signals meets a threshold signal level irrespective of a location of the active stylus contacting the touch sensor panel, wherein the threshold signal level is sufficient to meet a signal-to-noise requirement for at least one of the stylus signal detectors," as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 23-25; Reply Br. 12-14. Appellants argue: Zachut discloses detecting a stylus based on determining if "the energy level exceeds a pre-defined threshold for stylus detection." That is to say, Zachut identifies a stylus signal based on comparing a received signal ( e.g., output from a differential amplifier) to a detection threshold. This is not the same as using a channel aggregator (mapped to Zachut's differential amplifier) to generate aggregated signals of a specific threshold irrespective of a location of the active stylus contacting the touch sensor panel. Further, Zachut is completely silent about a "signal-to- noise requirement" of the stylus detector. App. Br. 24 (citing Zachut ,r 148). According to Appellants, Christiansson teaches selecting a touch detection threshold above a noise level of a spatial 8 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 transmission signal. App. Br. 24 (citing Christiansson ,r 82). Appellants argue "selecting a touch detection threshold, as taught by Christiansson, is not equivalent to producing aggregated signals that are above a threshold level irrespective of a location of the active stylus contacting the touch sensor panel," as required by claim 22. App. Br. 24--25. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Claim 22 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the channel aggregator is coupled to receive outputs of the plurality of sense channels and is configured to generate one or more signals based on combinations of the outputs of the plurality of sense channels. App. Br. 27 (Claims App'x). Claim 22 requires that the one or more signals generated by the channel aggregator meet a threshold signal level irrespective of a location of the active stylus contacting the touch sensor panel and that the threshold signal level is sufficient to meet a signal- to-noise requirement for at least one of the stylus signal detectors. App. Br. 31 (Claims App'x). The Examiner finds "Christiansson teaches selecting the threshold level such that the signal peaks are above the threshold level defined in terms of the noise level of the signal" and that "Christiansson uses a peak- detector algorithm ... to detect the presence of touch signals." Ans. 15-16 ( citing Christiansson ,r,r 82-83). The Examiner further finds: Christiansson teaches setting the threshold value low enough to detect the weakest touch signals but above the noise level of the spatial signal transmission (Christiansson, ,r,r [0082]- [0083]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to set a threshold level and detect aggregated signals above the threshold level irrespective of a location of the active stylus contacting the touch sensor panel to meet a signal-to-noise ratio requirement for detecting the active stylus's position in order to reduce the noise component 9 Appeal 2018-001414 Application 13/830, 127 within the sensed signals caused due to baseline capacitance which varies over different sensors, thus obtaining a uniform sensed signal. Ans. 16. However, the Examiner's findings fail to explain how setting a threshold level and detecting or determining whether an aggregated signal generated by a channel aggregator is above the threshold level, teaches or suggests that the channel aggregator is to generate a signal that meets a threshold signal level, as required by claim 22. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 and claims 23 and 24, which stand with claim 22. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, and 25-27. We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2- 6, 9-13, 16-20, and 22-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10