Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2022

2022000522 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 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. 15/663,588 07/28/2017 Brian Michael KING 106842148300 (P30726US1) 7032 161038 7590 02/14/2022 Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90071 EXAMINER ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2022 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): docket@kuba-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN MICHAEL KING, MOHAMMAD YEKE YAZDANDOOST, EHSAN KHAJEH, AARON SCOTT TUCKER, GIOVANNI GOZZINI, MARCUS YIP, MARDUKE YOUSEFPOR, DIGVIJAY JADHAV, INDRANIL SEN, MOHIT NARANG, YI JIANG, VAHID MAJIDZADEH BAFAR, MANSOUR KERAMAT, and HAO XU Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 90-93, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 2, 2022. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 2 We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims relate to “acoustic touch detection (touch sensing).” Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter, with the disputed limitation shown in italics: 1. An acoustic sensing system, comprising: a surface; a plurality of ultrasonic transducers coupled to edges of the surface, wherein the plurality of ultrasonic transducers includes a first transducer coupled along a first edge of the surface, a second transducer coupled along a second edge of the surface, a third transducer coupled along a third edge of the surface and a fourth transducer coupled along a fourth edge of the surface, wherein the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge are different edges of the surface, and wherein the plurality of ultrasonic transducers define an active detection region based on a position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers; and a processor coupled to the plurality of ultrasonic transducers and configured to: determine a first time of flight between a first ultrasonic wave generated by the first transducer of the plurality of transducers and a first reflection received at the first transducer; determine a second time of flight between a second ultrasonic wave generated by the second transducer of the plurality of transducers and a second reflection received at the second transducer; determine a third time of flight between a third ultrasonic wave generated by the third transducer of the plurality of transducers and a third reflection received at the third transducer; determine a fourth time of flight between a fourth ultrasonic wave generated by the fourth transducer of the Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 3 plurality of transducers and a fourth reflection received at the fourth transducer; detect, based on the first time of flight, the second time of flight, the third time of flight, or the fourth time of flight, a first object in contact with the surface; and determine a location of the first object based on the first time of flight, the second time of flight, the third time of flight, and the fourth time of flight. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art that the Examiner relies on as evidence is: Name Reference Date Reime et al. (“Reime”) US 2003/0034439 A1 Feb. 20, 2003 CHOI et al. (“Choi”) US 2016/0357279 A1 Dec. 8, 2016 REJECTION Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 90-93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Choi and Reime. Final Act. 2-11. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the rejected claims are patentable because the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 is in error. Appeal Br. 14-15. In particular, Appellant argues that Choi and Reime, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitation a plurality of ultrasonic transducers coupled to edges of the surface, wherein the plurality of ultrasonic transducers includes a first transducer coupled along a first edge of the surface, a second transducer coupled along a second edge of the surface, a third transducer coupled along a third edge of the surface and a fourth transducer coupled along a fourth edge of the surface, wherein the first edge, the second edge, the third edge, and the fourth edge are different edges of the surface, and wherein the Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 4 plurality of ultrasonic transducers define an active detection region based on a position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests that “the plurality of ultrasonic transducers define an active detection region based on a position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers.”2 Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner acknowledged that the Final Office Action “inadvertently left out the amended subject matter recited in regards to the position and the dimension of the ultrasonic transducers.” Ans. 13. The Examiner went on to find that, although the sensors in Choi are illustrated as being placed at the corners of the edge of the display, Choi teaches that they can be placed at various positions along the edge of the display. Id. at 13-14 (citing Choi Fig. 4, ¶¶ 64, 67, 87). Therefore, the Examiner found that Choi teaches the claimed feature of the position and the dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers as recited. The Examiner further found that Reime teaches the position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducer as recited in illustrating the optical transmitter and receivers positioned at different edges of the display. Id. at 14 (citing Reime Fig. 6A). Appellant argues that paragraphs 64 and 87 of Choi, relied on by the Examiner, do not support the Examiner’s findings because “a general statement of various possible positions for ultrasonic transducers does not expressly or inherently require placement of four transducers along four different edges. Moreover, the cited paragraphs have no discussion of the 2 Appellant refers to Figure 5A (active detection region or active area 504) and paragraph 59 of the Specification as describing the disputed claim limitation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 5 dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers and do not mention an active detection region.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings regarding Reime are similarly deficient because the Examiner pointed to the optical emitters and receivers positioned at different edges of the display in Fig. 6, but Reime’s sensor components do not define an active detection region based on the position and dimensions of the sensor components. Id. Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner’s findings do not explain how Choi, Reime, or the combination of references, teaches or suggests that “the plurality of ultrasonic transducers define an active detection region based on a position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers.” The Examiner did not sufficiently identify “an active detection region based on a position and dimensions of the ultrasonic transducers” in the prior art or explain how such region is defined based on a position and dimensions of the transducers. See Ans. 13-14. Thus, the Examiner has not shown how each of the elements recited in claim 1 are shown by the prior art of record. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments for claim 1 advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 12 and 19, which are commensurate in scope with claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s Appeal 2022-000522 Application 15/663,588 6 obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 90-93, argued as a group with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15-19, and 90-93. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-8, 10- 12, 15-19, 90-93 103 Choi, Reime 1, 4-8, 10- 12, 15-19, 90-93 REVERSED