Ex Parte Badaye et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201613631369 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/631,369 09/28/2012 60909 7590 10/04/2016 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 198 CHAMPION COURT SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709 Massoud Badaye 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CD12037 8112 EXAMINER PATEL, PREMAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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): patents@cypress.com pbj@cypress.com pbjtmp2@cypress.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MASSOUD BADA YE, PETER VA V AROUTSOS, MILTON RIBEIRO, and OLEKSANDR HOSHTANAR1 Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 Technology Center 2600 Before ADAM J. PYONIN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Cypress Semiconductor Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-27. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 6. Claims 4 and 12 are objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim. Final Act. 1, 37. Claims 2, 10, and 19 were canceled during prosecution. App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. CLAIMED INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to trace patterns of electrodes in capacitive touch-sensor arrays. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A capacitive sensor array, comprising: a first set of sensor electrodes; and a second set of sensor electrodes, wherein each of the second set of sensor electrodes intersects each of the first set of sensor electrodes to form a plurality of unit cells each corresponding to a pair of sensor electrodes including one of the first set of sensor electrodes and one of the second set of sensor electrodes, wherein a first trace pattern of a first pair of electrodes forming a first unit cell of the plurality of unit cells is different from a second trace pattern of a second pair of electrodes forming an adjacent unit cell of the plurality of unit cells, wherein a first electrode, from the first set of sensor electrodes, is included in the first pair of electrodes to form the first unit cell and in the second pair of electrodes to form the adjacent unit cell, wherein a first shape of the first electrode that forms the first unit cell is different from a second shape of the first electrode that forms the adjacent unit cell, wherein the first unit cell includes a 2 Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 different number of trace branches than the adjacent unit cell, and wherein the first unit cell is nearer than the adjacent unit cell to an edge of the capacitive sensor array. Dews Wu An REFERENCES US 2010/0079393 Al US 2011/0157079 Al US 2011/0227858 Al REJECTIONS Apr. 1, 2010 June 30, 2011 Sept. 22, 2011 Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 13-18, and 20-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu and An. Final Act. 2-35. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, An, and Dews. Final Act. 35-36. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5--8, 11, 13-18, and 20--27 The Examiner holds claim 1 to be obvious over the combined teachings of Wu and An. Final Act 2. Appellants argue that Wu and An fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claim 1 italicized above, which requires the trace pattern of a first pair of electrodes forming a first unit cell be different from a second trace pattern of a second pair of electrodes forming an adjacent unit cell ("the disputed trace pattern limitation"). App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4--5. The Examiner finds that the electrodes shown in unit cells 1 and 2 of an annotated version of Figure 1 of Wu, reprinted below, satisfy the disputed trace pattern limitation: 3 Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--5. f'''X'.'*'"'J ~ '~ ~ ....... »-'="-"' t ' ~ 7 -~ B (Figure 1 of Wu is a diagram illustrating a capacitive sensing device. Wu iT 51.) The Examiner reaches this finding by construing the term "different" with respect to trace patterns of electrodes to encompass electrodes at different positions. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5. Appellants argue that the term properly construed would not encompass such electrodes because the Specification defines trace patterns to be patterns of conductive material within the cell, and not the positions of cells within an array. Reply. Br. 4-- 5. 4 Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 We agree with Appellants. In describing two unit cells, the Specification sets forth: "The trace pattern within each of these unit cells refers to the pattern of conductive material that makes up the portions of the sensor electrodes within the unit cells." Spec. i-f 51. Further, Figures 7 A through 7N illustrate various embodiments of trace patterns, all of which are patterns of conductive material that make up the portions of the sensor electrodes within the unit cells. Spec. i-fi-1 14, 7 5-83, Figs. 7 A-7N. Thus, the Examiner's construction of claim 1 effectively reads the term "different" out of the claim. "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 8 and 14 recite limitations that have commensurate scope to the disputed trace limitation of claim 1. See Claim Appendix. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 14. Claims 3, 5-7, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20-27 all depend on one of claims 1, 8 and 14. See Claim Appendix. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20-27. Claim 9 Claim 9 stands rejected as being obvious over Dews in combination with Wu and An (the references used to reject claim 1 ). Final Act. 35. The Examiner, however, does not rely on Dews for the trace pattern limitation recited by claim 8, which is incorporated by dependency into claim 9. Final Act. 35-36; Claim Appendix. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 for the reasons discussed above for claim 8. 5 Appeal2015-002457 Application 13/631,369 DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-27. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation