Shahrooz Shahparnia et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

14286949 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
14/286,949 05/23/2014 Shahrooz SHAHPARNIA 106842101300
(P22466US1)
5119
161038 7590 08/01/2019
Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suite 2140
Los Angeles, CA 90071
EXAMINER
OKEBATO, SAHLU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
docket@kuba-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHAHROOZ SHAHPARNIA and
MARDUKE YOUSEFPOR
____________________

Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We heard oral argument in this appeal on July 22,
2019.
We reverse.

Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application “relates to touch sensor panels used as input
devices for computing systems, and more particularly, to coded integration
of a self-capacitance touch sensor panel.” Specification ¶ 1, filed May 23,
2014 (“Spec.”). Claims 1 and 16 are independent and illustrate the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for measuring a self-capacitance of a plurality
of electrodes, the method comprising:
coupling the plurality of electrodes to a sense channel
during a plurality of integration periods, wherein at least two of
the plurality of electrodes are simultaneously coupled to the
sense channel during at least one of the plurality of integration
periods;
generating a plurality of composite output signals, one or
more of the plurality of composite output signals based on an
output of the sense channel during a corresponding integration
period; and
demodulating the plurality of composite output signals to
extract a self-capacitance measurement for the plurality of
electrodes.
Appeal Brief 35, filed April 10, 2017 (“App. Br.”).
16. An apparatus for measuring self-capacitance, the
apparatus comprising:
sensing circuitry configured to be coupled to a plurality of
electrodes via a plurality of switches;
logic configurable to control the plurality of switches to
couple the plurality of electrodes to the sensing circuitry, wherein
the plurality of switches can be controlled to simultaneously
couple the sensing circuitry to at least two of the plurality of
electrodes; and
a demodulation section configurable to decode a plurality
of outputs of the sensing circuitry to determine the self-
capacitance of the plurality of electrodes.
Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

3
App. Br. 38.
REJECTIONS1
Claims Basis References
1–3, 7, 12, 16, 17, 21–
23, and 29 § 102(a) Tiruvuru
2
5, 13, 19, and 30 § 103 Tiruvuru and Hong3
8–11, 14, 24–28, and
31 § 103 Tiruvuru and Park
4

DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “coupling the plurality of electrodes to a sense channel
during a plurality of integration periods, wherein at least two of the plurality
of electrodes are simultaneously coupled to the sense channel during at least
one of the plurality of integration periods.” App. Br. 35. Appellants argue
that Tiruvuru does not disclose this limitation because Tiruvuru describes “a
strict one-to-one correspondence between an electrode whose self-
capacitance is to be measured and an” integrator circuit. App. Br. 14
(emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection relies
on an unreasonably broad interpretation of the word “coupled” as connected
“via a path which does not allow for some transfer of power or signal
information between the two components.” App. Br. 17.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner found that
Tiruvuru discloses the “coupling” limitation at issue because Tiruvuru shows

1 Appellants have not appealed the rejection of claims 9 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112. App. Br. 3.
2 Tiruvuru (US 2014/0145997 A1; May 29, 2014).
3 Hong et al. (US 2014/0347122 A1; Nov. 27, 2014).
4 Park (US 2015/0091845 A1; Apr. 2, 2015).
Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

4
selection component 124(1) electrically connected to columns 126 of sensor
102 and to integrator 112. See Final Office Action 14, mailed September 28,
2016 (“Final Act.”). The Examiner explained that “the word ‘coupled’ is a
very broad term so the amplifier/integrator can electrically couple to
multiple column electrodes 126 through different components of the touch
panel sensor 102.” Final Act. 14.
Although the cited portions of Tiruvuru disclose that selection
component 124(1) is electrically connected to multiple columns 126 of
sensor 102 and to integrator 112, the Examiner has not shown that the cited
portions of Tiruvuru disclose that integrator 112 and multiple columns 126
of sensor 102 are electrically connected to each other. See Final Act. 3, 14.
Nor has the Examiner shown that the cited portions of Tiruvuru disclose that
selection component 124(1) connects integrator 112 to multiple columns 126
of sensor 102. See Final Act. 3, 14. To the extent that the Examiner found
that Tiruvuru discloses the disputed “coupling” limitation simply because
Tiruvuru shows selection component 124(1) electrically connected to
multiple columns 126 of sensor 102 and to integrator 112, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner relied on an unreasonably broad interpretation
of the word “coupled.” As argued by Appellants, in the context of this
application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “coupled”
does not include a connection via a path that does not allow for some
transfer of power or signal information between components. See, e.g., Spec.
¶ 42 (describing operation of an embodiment of the invention), Fig. 6
(showing an embodiment in which electrodes can be coupled to sensing
circuitry by switches). The Examiner has not shown that Tiruvuru discloses
a path between multiple columns 126 of sensor 102 and integrator 112
Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

5
(either directly or through selection component 124(1)) that allows for the
transfer of power or signal information between multiple columns 126 and
integrator 112.
The Examiner also found that Tiruvuru discloses the disputed
limitation because Tiruvuru’s “self-capacitance measurement is a product of
coupling one of the driving line and one of the corresponding sensing lines.”
Answer 4, mailed August 24, 2017 (“Ans.”). The Examiner found that “[i]f
there is no electrical coupling between driving line and a corresponding
sensing line[], there wouldn’t be a self-capacitance measurement.” Ans. 4.
But the Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence to support these
findings. See Ans. 4; see also Reply Brief 8 (arguing that the Examiner
failed to “provide any evidence that supports these contentions”), filed
October 24, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). And as asserted by Appellants, Tiruvuru
appears to teach otherwise. See App. Br. 14 (citing Tiruvuru ¶¶ 22–23);
Reply Br. 8 (citing Tiruvuru ¶ 22).
For at least the above reasons, on this record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites “sensing circuitry configured to be coupled to a
plurality of electrodes via a plurality of switches.” App. Br. 38. Appellants
argue that the Examiner has not shown that Tiruvuru discloses this limitation
because the parts of Tiruvuru relied on by the Examiner depict sensor rows
and columns directly coupled to other components, not coupled to the
components through switches as required by claim 16. See App. Br. 5–10.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner appears to
have mapped the recited “sensing circuitry,” “plurality of electrodes,” and
Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

6
“plurality of switches,” to Tiruvuru’s integrator 112, columns 126 and rows
140 of sensor 102, and multiplexers 128, 130 of selection component 124(1),
respectively. See, e.g., Final Act. 5, 14–15; Ans. 6. But the Examiner has not
shown that Tiruvuru discloses using multiplexers 128, 130 to couple
integrator 112 to a plurality of columns 126 or rows 140 of sensor 102. To
the extent that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 relies on an
interpretation of “coupled” that includes a connection via a path that does
not allow for a transfer of power or signal information between components,
we find that the Examiner erred for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
On this record, we thus do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 16.
Remaining Claims
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejections of claims 2, 3, 7, 12, which depend from claim 1, and
claims 17, 21–23, and 29, which depend from claim 16. Because the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5, 8–11, 13, 14, 19,
24–28, 30, and 31 suffer from the same deficiencies as the Examiner’s
anticipation rejections of claims 1 and 16, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2018-000665
Application 14/286,949

7
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected Basis References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 12,
16, 17, 21–
23, and 29
§ 102(a) Tiruvuru
1–3, 7, 12,
16, 17, 21–
23, and 29
5, 13, 19,
and 30 § 103
Tiruvuru and
Hong
5, 13, 19,
and 30
8–11, 14,
24–28, and
31
§ 103 Tiruvuru and Park
8–11, 14,
24–28, and
31
Outcome
1–3, 5, 7–14,
16, 17, 19,
and 21–31

REVERSED