STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020004404 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 15/151,247 05/10/2016 Tae-gil Kang 16KR0148US01/58940-01753 7299 30430 7590 02/02/2022 CROWE & DUNLEVY - ST-US INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION - DALLAS 2525 MCKINNON STREET SUITE 425 DALLAS, TX 75201 EXAMINER SCHNIREL, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): IPDAL@crowedunlevy.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAE-GIL KANG, HANG YIN, and CAM CHUNG LA Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 15, 16, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, 46, and 51.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific PTE LTD as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2, 4, 10, 23-28, 47, 48, 50, and 52-55 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 3, 5-9, 11-14, 17-22, 31, 33-40, 43-45, and 49 have been canceled. Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “generally to touch screens and more specifically to techniques for determining a relationship between a user’s hand and a housing of an electronic device.” Spec. 1:10-12. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An electronic device, comprising: a touch screen controller for a touch sensitive display carried by a portable housing configured to: operate in a high detection threshold mode to determine whether an object is in contact with the touch sensitive display; operate in a low detection threshold mode to determine whether the object is adjacent to the touch sensitive display, based on lack of detection of the object being in contact with the touch sensitive display; and determine whether the object is in contact with a peripheral edge of the portable housing based on determination of the object being adjacent to the touch sensitive display, the determination of the object being in contact with a peripheral edge of the portable housing being performed by: scanning a first subset of sense lines most adjacent to a first side of the touch sensitive display and a second subset of sense lines most adjacent to the first subset of sense lines; scanning a third subset of sense lines most adjacent to a second side of the touch sensitive display and a fourth subset of sense lines most adjacent to the second subset of sense lines; and determining that object is in contact with the peripheral edge of the portable housing based upon the first subset of sense lines and the third subset of sense lines each being greater than a threshold while the second subset of sense lines and the fourth subset of sense lines are each less than the threshold, but determining that the object is not in contact with Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 3 the peripheral edge of the portable housing and is instead hovering over the portable housing based upon the first subset of sense lines and second subset of sense lines each being greater than the threshold or based upon the third subset of sense lines and the fourth subset of sense lines each being greater than the threshold. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal are listed below: Name Reference Date Joharapurkar US 2011/0261007 A1 Oct. 27, 2011 Park US 2014/0351768 A1 Nov. 27, 2014 REJECTION The Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 15, 16, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, 46, 51 103(a) Park, Joharapurkar ANALYSIS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Park discloses an electronic device having a touch sensitive display that operates in a high detection threshold mode and a low detection threshold mode and determines whether an object is in contact with the edge of the housing by scanning subsets of regions to determine whether the object is in contact with the peripheral edge of the housing. Final Act. 3-7 (citing Park ¶¶ 25, 26, 32, 38, 41, 42, 63; Figs. 1, 2B, 2E). Referring to Figure 2B of Park, the Examiner finds elements 211 and 213 meet the recited first and third subsets respectively while the recited second subset is met by “(Figure 2B, Element Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 4 not shown, but is the area of the touch screen (Element 133) that is adjacent to the left most outer area (Element 211)” and the recited fourth subset is met by “(Figure 2B, Element not shown, but is the area of the touch screen (Element 133) that is adjacent to the right most outer area (Element 213).” Final Act. 4-6. The Examiner also finds “Park is silent with regards to the sensing area being comprised of sense lines,” but determines Joharapurkar’s disclosure of sense lines forming sensing areas with Park’s system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a system having differential sensing and capable of sensing touch in different areas. Final Act. 7 (citing Joharapurkar ¶¶ 7, 38; Fig. 3). The Examiner relies on similar combination and reasoning for the limitations recited in independent claims 29, 46, and 51, as well as claims 15, 16, 30, 32, 41, 42. Final Act. 7- 26. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited determining that object is in contact with the peripheral edge of the portable housing based upon the first subset of sense lines and the third subset of sense lines each being greater than a threshold while the second subset of sense lines and the fourth subset of sense lines are each less than the threshold, but determining that the object is not in contact with the peripheral edge of the portable housing and is instead hovering over the portable housing based upon the first subset of sense lines and second subset of sense lines each being greater than the threshold or based upon the third subset of sense lines and the fourth subset of sense lines each being greater than the threshold. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s characterization of different areas shown in Figure 2B of Joharapurkar as the recited first, second, third, and fourth subsets of sense lines and comparing their specific Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 5 combination with a threshold to determine hovering, as required in claim 1, is not supported by the reference disclosure. Id. Acknowledging that Park discloses a hover mode and different sets of sense lines, Appellant argues that Park does not teach the “specific comparisons made between values at different sense lines in order to determine that an object is not in contact with the peripheral edge of the housing and is instead hovering.” Id. at 11. With respect to the Examiner’s further reliance on elements 241, 242, and 243 in Figure 2E of Park as the recited subsets of sense lines, Appellant argues that elements 241, 242, and 243 are described as “hover lock regions in which input is ignored during hover mode,” which are not involved in determining that an object is not in contact with the peripheral edge of the housing. Id.; see also id. at 12 (citing Park ¶¶ 40, 41; Figs. 2D, 2E). We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner has not adequately established that Park discloses the specific way claim 1 limitations compare different subsets of sense lines to determine whether an input is a hover or a touch to the peripheral edge of the housing. Reply Br. 3-6. Rather, the rejection is based on the Examiner’s mapping the recited subsets of sense lines to Park’s regions near the edge of the display, which are described as “hovering lock regions.” Ans. 28-29. We agree with Appellant’s argument that “independent claim 1 describes a specific way to differentiate between a touch [to a periphery of the device] and a hover” whereas “[t]he generic description in paragraph 32 of Park of differentiation between a touch and a hover is not a teaching of the specific technique used for this differentiation,” as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 4. Park’s Figure 2B is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 6 Figure 2B above illustrates determining a hovering lock region. Park ¶ 17. With respect to Figure 2B of Park, the Examiner finds the disclosure of a hover input towards the center of the display from areas 211 and 213, which are inactive up to a certain distance from the right and left edges of the display, meets the recited detecting a hover input when the first and third sense lines are greater than a threshold. Id. (citing Park ¶ 38). Paragraph 38 of Park describes regions 211 and 213 as hover lock regions defined by an area extending from the edge of display 133 toward the center by predetermined distances 215, 217, or 219, where inputs are ignored. The Examiner however, does not map the recited second and fourth sense lines and whether they are each less than a threshold, as required by claim 1, to any disclosure in Park. Although the Examiner recognizes that the sense lines are compared to a threshold, see Ans. 27, the Examiner’s mapping of the recited sense lines, at best, addresses only the first and third sense lines. Final Act. 4-5. Similarly, the Examiner fails to adequately explain how mapping the recited subsets of sense lines to the regions shown Appeal 2020-004404 Application 15/151,247 7 in Figure 2E of Park and described as hover lock regions satisfy the specific recited requirements for comparing the values of the sense lines to a threshold for determining that an input is a hover or contact with the peripheral edge of the housing. See Ans. 29 (citing Park ¶ 41; Fig. 2E). CONCLUSION We are persuaded that the preponderance of the evidence cited in this Appeal record supports Appellant’s position with respect to claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 29, 46, and 51, which recite similar limitations, is based on the same findings for the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 9-15, 18-26. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of error for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 29, 46, and 51, as well as the remaining claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 15, 16, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, 46, 51 103(a) Park, Joharapurkar 1, 15, 16, 29, 30, 32, 41, 42, 46, 51 REVERSED