Ex Parte Wilford

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2016

12773054 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121773,054 05/04/2010 173 7590 10/27/2016 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 2000 NORTH M63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR GREGORY HOW ARD WILFORD 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. SUB-US20090077-US-NP 5147 EXAMINER MA, CALVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/27/2016 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): whirlpool_patents_co@whirlpool.com mike_lafrenz@whirlpool.com deborah_tomaszewski@whirlpool.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY HOWARD WILFORD Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 Technology Center 2600 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-21. 1 Claim 18 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Whirlpool Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 THE INVENTION Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a capacitive touch switch capable of displaying a "dead-front" user interface. (Spec., Title.) According to the Specification: When an icon is not illuminated, it may be desirable for the icon to be invisible or substantially invisible to the user. When some or all of the icons in a user interface disappear from view, a dead- front effect results in which the panel appears to the user as a monochromatic surface. (Spec. if 3.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A capacitive touch switch comprising: a transparent insulating panel; a filtering layer positioned behind the transparent insulating panel, wherein the filtering layer has an opaque color and a transparent icon is defined in the filtering layer; a transparent substrate positioned behind the filtering layer, wherein the transparent substrate includes a capacitive electrode and is formed of a tinted material that substantially matches the opaque color of the filtering layer; and a light source configured to transmit light through the transparent substrate, the transparent icon, and the transparent insulating panel when energized. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 11-1 7, and 19-21 under 3 5 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. (US 7,532, 131 B2, issued May 12, 2009), Caldwell et al. (US 5,239, 152, issued Aug. 24, 2 Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 1993), and Knoerzer et al. (US 2003/0048635 Al, pub. Mar. 13, 2003). (Final Act. 2-11.) The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaefer, Caldwell, Knoerzer, and Nishikawa et al. (US 2007 /218957 Al, pub. Sep. 20, 2007). (Final Act. 11-12.) The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schaefer, Caldwell, Knoerzer, and Wijaya et al. (US 2009/0278813 Al, pub. Nov. 12, 2009). (Final Act. 12-13.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue: 2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Schaefer, Caldwell, and Knoerzer teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "a transparent substrate ... formed of a tinted material that substantially matches the opaque color of the filtering layer," and the similar limitation recited in independent claims 11 and 16. (App. Br. 6-13, 20-21.) ANALYSIS The specification discusses the limitation at issue with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 16, "a transparent substrate ... formed of a 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 2, 2013); the Reply Brief (filed May 23, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Jun. 28, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 26, 2014) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 tinted material that substantially matches the opaque color of the filtering layer," as follows: The transparent substrate 108 which carries the capacitive electrodes 110 is tinted to substantially match the opaque color of the filtering layer 104 ... Tinting of the transparent substrate 108 to substantially match the opaque color of the filtering layer 104 presents the user 200 with the appearance of a monochromatic surface when the icon 128 is not illuminated. (Spec. if 25.) In finding Schaefer, Caldwell, and Knoerzer teach or suggest this limitation, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Schaefer of a keypad including a transparent substrate positioned behind a filtering layer, wherein the transparent substrate includes a capacitive sensor. (Final Act. 2-3; Schaefer, Figs. 2, 3, element 30, col. 3, 11. 8-29.)3 The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Caldwell of a capacitive touch sensor panel including a substrate supporting a plurality of transparent electrically capacitive sensing pads and an optical filter layer that is colored so that the above-described dead front appearance is achieved: "The application of an optical filter behind substrate 12 creates the appearance of a substantially homogeneous plain colored panel until one or more of the light sources in light matrix 18 is actuated." (Final Act. 3; Caldwell, Figs. IA, IB, col. 2, 1. 31---col. 3, 1. 56.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Knoerzer of an electroluminescent film made up of layers including a transparent 3 The Examiner incorrectly stated that the transparent substrate of Schaefer is "tinted." (Final Act. 2.) This is harmless error in light of the correct findings of the Examiner with respect to the cited references as a whole. 4 Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 electrode layer that can be tinted with color. (Final Act. 4; Knoerzer, Fig. 3, ii 33.) Appellant argues the Examiner errs because none of the cited references disclose a transparent substrate tinted to match the opaque color of a filtering layer. (Ans. 6-10.) We agree with Appellant. Although Caldwell discloses a technique to achieve the dead front effect that is the focus of the invention at issue, it does so using a tinted filter that is transparent, not opaque, and does not teach or suggest anything in regard to a color of a transparent capacitive electrode layer. (Ans. 8-9.) The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited references, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest the limitation at issue, and we are not otherwise persuaded by the Examiner's analysis. (See Ans. 10-11.) Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 11, and 16. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 11, and 16. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-10, 12-15, 17, and 19-21, which claims depend from claims 1, 11 or 16. 5 Appeal2014-006789 Application 12/773,054 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and 19-21. REVERSED 6