Ex Parte Brittain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2017

13483746 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2017)

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.
13/483,746 05/30/2012 Kenneth G. BRITTAIN 69883US002 1599
32692 7590 09/15/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
MILLER, DANIEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2866
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2017 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH G. BRITTAIN, SAMMUEL D. HERBERT,
and NEIL F. DIAMOND
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,7461
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—12.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants state that the real parties in interest are 3M Company and 3M
Innovative Properties Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal involves an apparatus for testing
electrodes in devices such as touch panels, wherein the resistance of an
electrode is inferred by introducing a signal to a stimulation point of the
electrode via capacitive coupling, and measuring a resultant signal at a
measurement point on the electrode. Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with key limitations
italicized:
1. An apparatus for inferring a resistivity of an electrode
between a stimulation point and a measurement point,
wherein a drive signal is introduced into the electrode at the
stimulation point by capacitive coupling, and the
measurement point is physically electrically coupled to a
measurement circuitry comprising an amplifier circuit
configured to produce a resultant signal that is a function of
the resistivity of the electrode.
App. Br. 8.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Williams
Lubarsky
Hsu
US 4,370,616
US 2004/0113895 A1
US 8,536,876 B2
Jan. 25, 1983
June 17, 2004
Sept. 17,2013
Claims 1—6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hsu in view of Williams (Final Act. 3—6), and claims 7—9
2
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hsu in view of
Williams and further in view of Lubarsky (Final Act. 6—7).
OPINION
Appellants present substantive arguments against the rejection of
claims 1 and 10. App. Br. 3—6; Reply Br. 2-4. No other claims are argued
with any specificity. Id. Thus, in deciding this appeal, we need only
consider the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hsu teaches all of the elements of claim 1,
except for the limitation requiring “the measurement point [of the electrode]
is physically electrically coupled to a measurement circuitry comprising an
amplifier circuit configured to produce a resultant signal that is a function of
the resistivity of the electrode” and relies on the disclosure of Williams to
satisfy this teaching. Final Act. 2—3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Figure 3 of Williams discloses electrode 40 which has a direct connection to
the amplifier circuit 50 via conductor 60. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to combine the
teachings of Hsu and Williams based on a finding that such combination
would have reasonably expected “to take advantage of a high input
impedance of a modem operational amplifier and thereby allow[]
amplification of small changes in charge levels on the electrode to
measurable levels, without loading the measurement point.” Id. at 3^4. The
Examiner finds that, consistent with Ohm’s law, “any voltage measured by
the apparatus of Hsu and Williams will necessarily be a function of [the]
electrode resistivity, as claimed” Ans. 12.
3
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 3—6;
Reply Br. 2 4) and are not persuaded that Appellants have identified
reversible error. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellants to
identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). Therefore, we sustain
the obviousness rejections advanced in this appeal based on the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Williams fails to teach the recited “amplifier
circuit configured to produce a resultant signal that is a function of the
resistivity of the electrode” because electrode 40 is connected to input node
54 which is a virtual ground. App. Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2—3. According to
Appellants, Williams’ amplifier circuit disclosed in Figure 3 is configured to
produce a resultant signal (Vout) at output terminal 68 that is the sum of the
current going through electrode 40 and the resistance of resistor 62. App.
Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2—3. Thus, Appellants contend that Williams’ resultant
signal is a function of the current going through electrode 40, and is not a
function of its resistivity. App. Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 2—3.
This line of argument is unpersuasive of reversible error. Jung, 637
F.3d at 1365—66. Appellants admit that Williams’ Vout is a function of the
current going through electrode 40. App. Br. 4. The Examiner finds that a
current measurement (I) is physically related to the voltage (V) and the
resistance (R) measurements by virtue of Ohm’s law (i.e., V=IR). Ans. 10.
Applying this principle, the Examiner determines that because current is
a function of both the resistance of the electrodes and the voltage
across the electrode, it necessarily follows that the voltage output
4
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
by the circuit disclosed by Williams, when combined with the
capacitive sensor array disclosed by Hsu, must produce [or is
reasonably expected to produce] an output that is a function of
the resistivity of the electrodes.
Id. at 15.
In view of Appellants’ admission that Williams’ output signal is a
function of the current through electrode 40, and the Examiner’s explicative
rationale as to how Ohm’s law determines current, voltage, and resistance
values within a circuit, we determine that the skilled artisan would have had
a reasonable expectation that Williams’ amplifier circuit would be
configured to produce the claimed signal, consistent with Ohm’s law.
Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s application of Ohm’s
law (Reply Br. 2—3), namely that Williams’ Vout is independent of the
resistance of electrode 40, but is instead a function of the resistivity of
resistor 62, are likewise unpersuasive. Appellants fail to point us to any
objective evidence of record that demonstrates that Williams’ amplifier
circuit is not configured to produce a signal that is, at least to some degree, a
function of the resistivity of electrode 40, despite its connection to a virtual
ground at node 54. Rather, Appellants rely on attorney argument to support
this statement. “Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Moreover, Appellants’ argument seems at odds with Appellants’ own
Specification. In this regard, we note that Williams’ amplifier circuit
disclosed in Figure 3 is configured in a similar fashion to the claimed circuit
outlined in Figure 3 of Appellants’ Specification.
Appellants’ annotated Figure 3 of Williams (Reply Br. 2) is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
4Z
rio*3.
-C o
V im
SE s(G8
V
Appellants’ annotated Figure 3 of Williams, reproduced above,
depicts a diagram of an electrostatic detector. Item 40 is the detector
electrode (Williams 6:12—20), item 50 is the operational amplifier (id. at
6:30-34), item 60 is the conductor (id. at 6:34—38), item 54 is a negative
input terminal (id.), item 62 is a resistor in a feedback path between the
negative input terminal 54 and the output terminal 52 (id. at 6:38-42), and
item 68 is the resultant output signal Vout (id. at 6:47—52).
Appellants’ Figure 3 is reproduced below:
Appellants’ Figure 3, reproduced above, depicts an electrode testing
apparatus. Item 302 is the electrode that is physically electrically coupled to
the amplifier circuit 310 (Spec. 6:32—7:1), wherein node 314 is connected to
6
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
the negative input terminal of the amplifier (id. at 7:5—10), item 319 is a
resistor in a feedback path between the negative input terminal 314 and the
output terminal (id. at 7:22), and item 3 is the resultant signal Vimpulse
produced by amplifier 310 (id. at 7:16—17).
Therefore, Figure 3 of Williams and Figure 3 of Appellants’
Specification share the common features of an electrode, an amplifier, a
negative input terminal at a virtual ground, and a feedback path containing a
resistor between the negative input terminal and the output terminal, all
configured in a similar manner.
According to the Specification, because “the resistivity of the trace
[(Rtrace 320)] is coupled, along with the feedback resistance Rf319, to the
virtual ground node, the peak of the resulting waveform Vimpulse is a linear
function of the resistance of the trace.” Spec. 7:21—23 (emphasis added).
That is, the resistivity of the electrode between the stimulation point and
measurement point, represented by Rtrace 320 is coupled with the resistivity
of Rf 319 in the feedback path to produce the Vimpulse signal. Such
resultant signal Vimpulse “is a linear function of the” electrode’s resistivity
coupled with the resistivity of the resistor in the feedback path Rf 319. Id.
Appellants’ additional arguments alleging the inoperability of the
combined Hsu and Williams apparatus (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4), and a lack
of motivation to combine the teachings of Williams and Hsu (App. Br. 4—6;
Reply Br. 3 4) are also unpersuasive of reversible error for the well-stated
reasons given by the Examiner in the Answer. Ans. 13, 16—18. We also add
“[t]hat a given combination would not be made by businessmen for
economic reasons does not mean that persons skilled in the art would not
make the combination because of some technological incompatibility. Only
the latter fact would be relevant.” In re Farrenkopf 713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed.
7
Appeal 2016-008003
Application 13/483,746
Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed.
Cir. 1983)). Here, Appellants’ attorney arguments (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3—
4) fall short of demonstrating such incompatibility of combining Williams’
high impedance amplifier with Hsu’s apparatus. Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405.
It follows that we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejection of dependent claims 2—6 and 11.
Appellants make no additional substantive arguments regarding
independent claim 10, or separately rejected claims 7—9 (App. Br. 6). We,
therefore, sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons given
by the Examiner in the Answer and expressed above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8