Cirrus Logic International Semiconductor Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2022

2021000921 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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. 16/294,217 03/06/2019 Tejasvi DAS 141841.01017-P3616US00 2271 115799 7590 03/16/2022 Cirrus Logic c/o Jackson Walker LLP c/o Jackson Walker, L.L.P. 100 Congress Avenue Suite 1100 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER FLORES, ROBERTO W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TEJASVI DAS, SIDDHARTH MARU, ZHONG YOU, and LUKE LAPOINTE Appeal 2021-000921 Application 16/294,217 Technology Center 2600 Before MINN CHUNG, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cirrus Logic International Semiconductor Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000921 Application 16/294,217 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “resonant phase sensing of resistive- inductive-capacitive sensors for use in a system for mechanical button replacement in a mobile device.” Spec. 1. Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1 and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 8-11. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A system comprising: a resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor; a measurement circuit communicatively coupled to the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor and configured to: measure phase information associated with the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor; and based on the phase information, determine a displacement of a mechanical member relative to the resistive- inductive-capacitive sensor; and a Q factor enhancer communicatively coupled to the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor and configured to control a Q factor of the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor. References and Rejections Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldwin (U.S. 2015/0077094 A1; Mar. 19, 2015). Claims 3-9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of David (U.S. 2017/0371473 A1; Dec. 28, 2017). Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Rollins (U.S. 2009/0140728 A1; June 4, 2009). Appeal 2021-000921 Application 16/294,217 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues “Baldwin fails to teach, either inherently or expressly, ‘based on the phase information, determine a displacement of a mechanical member relative to the resistive-inductive-capacitive sensor’ as recited in Claims 1 and 11.” Appeal Br. 4-5 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that, although Baldwin’s “Figure 2 may depict a plot of a phase of a sensor and Figure la may teach a distance between a target and a sensor, nothing within Baldwin teaches that such distance is determined based on the phase information shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds “Baldwin teaches in [0018], [0032], Figure 1a and Figure 2, nominal resonant frequency waveforms (phase and frequency) corresponding to a nominal system resonant frequency state in which the resonant sensors are differentiated by respective, non-overlapping nominal resonant frequency states (nominal resonant frequency and resonant amplitude).” Ans. 4. Particularly, the Examiner finds “Baldwin include[s] phase and frequency in the resonance state,” and “Baldwin uses resonant frequency corresponding to each sensor to determining target positioning.” Id. at 5. We are persuaded the Examiner errs. “[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations removed). Further, “[a]nticipation requires that a single reference describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed Appeal 2021-000921 Application 16/294,217 4 in the prior art.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Claim 1 requires measuring phase information, and using this measured phase information to determine a displacement of a mechanical member. Baldwin, in contrast, determines the “[t]arget range sensing [(“displacement”)] . . . based on a target-range-sensing resonant frequency state that corresponds to the position of the respective target.” Baldwin ¶ 39 (emphasis added). Although Baldwin depicts “nominal resonant frequency waveforms” that include both phase and frequency (Baldwin ¶ 32), we agree with Appellant that Baldwin measures the “resonant frequency and resonant amplitude” of resonant frequency states, not the phase. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3, 4; Baldwin Fig. 3 (depicting an amplitude detector and a frequency detector), ¶ 21 (“Each resonant sensor is adapted to sense target position . . . and each includes a resonator configured for a resonant frequency state (steady-state oscillation amplitude and resonator frequency).”). That is, the mere depiction of phase in the waveforms of Baldwin (see Baldwin Fig. 2) does not constitute sufficient precision and detail to establish that Baldwin discloses measuring or using phase in the manner claimed. Accordingly, we find the Examiner errs in determining Baldwin anticipates the limitations of claim 1. We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 11 which recites similar limitations, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon. Appeal 2021-000921 Application 16/294,217 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 11, 12 102(a)(1) Baldwin 1, 2, 11, 12 3-9, 13-19 103 Baldwin, David 3-9, 13-19 10, 20 103 Baldwin, Rollins 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED