Ex Parte 8976127 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

90013699 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
90/013,699 04/06/2016 8976127 604/3 2043
7590 02/28/2018
HAN DINGNAN
100007 POST BOX, 02 BRANCH POST BOX
100007 YOU XIANG, 02 FEN XIANG
BEIJING, 10000-7
CHINA
EXAMINER
BONSHOCK, DENNIS G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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 HAN DINGNAN
____________________

Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. US 8,976,127 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1–15.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.
The ’127 patent issued to Han on March 10, 2015. The ’127 patent is
a method for determining a touch point of a special touch object such as a
touch pen contacting a touch screen. The method includes installing a sensor
on the special touch object, comparing the sensor data from the special touch
object, and determining the corresponding touch point of the special touch

1 Claim 16 is not subject to reexamination.
Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

2
object. The claimed invention further specifies that the touch data does not
include the exact location of the special touch object. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for determining the touch point corresponding to a particular
touch object, characterized in that touch data of the particular touch object
obtained by a sensor is compared with the relevant touch data of touch
points on touch surface so as to determine which touch point is
corresponding to the particular object, the touch data does not include exact
location of the particular object.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Fado US 5,438,275 Aug. 1, 1995
Kim US 2004/0041798 A1 Mar. 4, 2004
Ding US 2008/0169132 A1 July 17, 2008
Townsend US 8,018,440 B2 Sept. 13, 2011

Throughout this decision, we make reference to Appellant’s Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed June 28, 2017), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept.
26, 2017) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 17, 2017) for
their respective details.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Townsend and Fado.
Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Townsend, Fado, and Ding.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Townsend, Fado, and Kim.

Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

3
ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Townsend and Fado disclose or suggest
determining which touch point corresponds to the particular object?
2. Does the combination of Townsend and Fado disclose or suggest
that the touch data does not include the exact location of the particular
object?
3. Does the combination of Townsend and Fado disclose or suggest,
when there are two or more touch points according to information obtained
by the sensor, that the system can determine which touch point is from the
touch object?

ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, we observe that Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
repeats the same arguments several times. We address herein the dispositive
issues raised by Patent Owner.
REJECTION OVER TOWNSEND AND FADO
We do not agree with Patent Owner that Townsend fails to disclose a
“touch point,” as is recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 7. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Townsend receives multiple touches, which are
considered as potential intended points of input to the system. These
potential points are not recognized as actual input points until processing to
determine the reliability of each touch has been performed. See Ans. 22;
Townsend col. 6:5–44.
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Townsend “does
not need determine any Corresponding Relation” (sic) or “provide any
Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

4
method for determining Corresponding Relation” (sic), i.e., that
Townsend does not disclose that “touch data of the particular touch object
obtained by a sensor is compared with the relevant touch data of touch
points on touch surface so as to determine which touch point is
corresponding to the particular object,” as is recited in claim 1. See App.
Br. 8. Rather, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Townsend
recognizes multiple areas of touch and determines which one corresponds to
the intended user input position. “[A] display can compare the pressure and
area of the touch to determine whether the touch matches expected touch
patterns typically used for input.” Townsend col. 6:7–10. Figure 8a
illustrates a method that may be used to determine whether to reject the
touch 530. Townsend col. 7:9–10.
Patent Owner contends that “the factual content of reference
documents, and the examiner’s explanation, all show the factual
combination of the prior art Townsend and Fado completely contradict the
rejection reason, and a such skill art already has been examined and
overcame in the original examination,” citing U.S. Patent No. 7,649,524 B2.
App. Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive, because it is not relevant to the
patentability of the claims over the applied references. There is no rejection
made by the Examiner that cites the ’524 Patent as evidence of
unpatentability.
Patent Owner argues that the Examiner’s position is inconsistent, in
that the Examiner finds that Townsend alone can recognize a location in
which the stylus is pressing from amongst multiple other touches, but
originally states that “the touch data of [a] standard capacitive touchscreen
Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

5
as described by Townsend does not of itself identify a stylus location, but
rather only locations perceived contacts” (sic), and that Fado’s touch data is
“only pressure (and hence contact) and does not include location.” App. Br.
12, 14, 18–19. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive of
error because we do not agree that the statements are inconsistent. Townsend
discloses locating perceived contacts; Fado touch data is reflective of
pressure (and contact). See Ans. 27–28. Townsend discloses receiving a
plurality of such perceived contacts and evaluating the reliability of that
contact data to determine which touch is intentional. Townsend col. 6:5–44;
see Ans. 22. We agree with the Examiner that “[a]ll that is requires (sic,
required) [by the claim] is that the touch data at the stylus does not include
location. This data is then compared with a subset of the data at the touch
screen to determine which press is the ‘touch object.’” Ans. 28.
Appellant argues that the factual reliability assessment of Townsend is
not simply based on pressure and contact, but must be based on a specific
touch. App. Br. 27. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred for two
reasons. First, we do not find this argument to be germane to the claimed
invention. Appellant’s Brief does not tie this argument to a specific claim
limitation. Second, to the extent that this argument is directed to the claim
limitation that “the touch data does not include exact location of the
particular object,” we agree with the Examiner, as discussed supra, that the
combination of Townsend and Fado suggests this limitation. Townsend
senses a plurality of potential touches, and evaluates the reliability of the
sensing data to determine which potential touch is considered to be the
“intentional” one. Townsend col. 6:5–44. Fado is relied upon for its
Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

6
disclosure of a stylus having a contact/pressure sensor that transmits data by
RF signal. Fado col. 3:4–54.
With reference to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 4,
Appellant argues that Townsend discloses rejecting unintended touches, but
that such disclosure “does not cause an intended touch to be found from
among multiple unintended and intended touches.” App. Br. 50. We
presume that this argument is directed to claim 4’s limitation that “when
there are two or more touch points, according to information obtained by the
sensor, system can determine which touch point is from the touch object.”
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the rejection of unintended touches is “the entire
focus of Townsend.” Ans. 50. Necessarily, if one senses a plurality of
potential touches, and processing can eliminate the touches assessed to be
unintentional, only the intended touch remains. See id. We further agree with
the Examiner that combination with Fado would improve the accuracy of
determining “which pressure matches that form (sic) the stylus in a 1-1
association.” Ans. 50.
Appellant does not present separate argument for patentability of the
dependent claims, stating that “[o]ther claims are dependent claims of
claim1 and claim4” (sic). App. Br. 57.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 4 over Townsend and Fado. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–6, 8, 9, and 12–15. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 7 and 11 over Townsend,
Fado, and Ding, not separately argued, for the same reasons. We sustain the
Appeal 2018-000351
Reexamination Control 90/013,699
Patent No. 8,976,127 B2

7
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 10 over Townsend, Fado,
and Kim, not separately argued, for the same reasons expressed with respect
to claim 4.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Townsend and Fado discloses determining
which touch point is corresponding to the particular object.
2. The combination of Townsend and Fado discloses that the touch
data does not include the exact location of the particular object.
3. The combination of Townsend and Fado discloses that, when there
are two or more touch points according to information obtained by the
sensor, that the system can determine which touch point is from the touch
object.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED