Ex Parte Cahalan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2018

15091372 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/091,372 04/05/2016
100661 7590
MP Patents, LLC
4845 Pearl East Circle
Suite 101
Boulder, CO 80301
05/11/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dennis Cahalan
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.
CEEBUS004CON 9445
EXAMINER
ELNAFIA, SAIFELDIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2018 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):
mbpriddy@mppatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENNIS CAHALAN, RICHARD DEICHERT,
JOHN V ANLAANEN, TED NOONAN, MICHEL HENDRICKS,
and DAVID CAHALAN,
Appeal2018-000710
Application 15/091,3 72
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON,
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-000710
Application 15/091,372
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent. Representative claim 1 under
appeal read as follows:
1. A method for determining touch location on a touch screen,
compnsmg:
emitting a radiation pulse through a waveguide from one or more of a
plurality of radiation sources coupled with a lower surface of the waveguide;
forming a radiation response profile from the attenuation of each
radiation pulse emitted from the plurality of radiation sources, internally
reflected through the waveguide and measured at one or more radiation
sensors coupled with the lower surface of the waveguide interior to at least
one perimeter surface of the waveguide;
when a width of the radiation response profile is within a pre-defined
range and a magnitude of the radiation response profile meets or exceeds a
threshold, determining a response centroid from the radiation response
profile;
constructing a line equation defining the path between each response
centroid and the emitting radiation source such that each line equation
extends at an angle relative to every other line equation;
calculating points of interception for the line equations; and
computing a centroid of the points of interception to establish a valid
touch location.
2
Appeal2018-000710
Application 15/091,372
Rejections
1. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of
copending Application No. 14/844,916. 1
2. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 14--16, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a) (1) as being anticipated by Christiansson (US 2011
/0090176 Al; Apr. 21, 2011).
3. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansson, and further in view
of King (US 2013/0135259 Al; May 30, 2013).
4. Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Christiansson, and further in view of Hollaway (US 2011
/0228192 Al; Sept. 22, 2011).
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because Christiansson does not disclose the claimed "radiation sources
coupled with a lower surface of the waveguide." (App. Br. 13).
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 1 because Christiansson does not disclose the claimed "calculating
points of interception for the line equations." (App. Br. 16).
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 1 because Christiansson does not disclose "computing a centroid of
the points of interception." (App. Br. 17-18).
1 Arguments are not presented for this provisional rejection. Therefore, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection proforma. Except for our ultimate decision,
this rejection of these claims is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2018-000710
Application 15/091,372
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by
Christiansson because the reference does not teach the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS 2, 3
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-12). However,
we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
As to above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants' arguments.
The Examiner correctly points out that Christiansson explicitly discloses
sensors 3 that could be coupled with the lower surface of the waveguide,
which is between parallel surfaces 4, 5. Ans. 3.
In particular, ,r 42 of Christiansson discloses:
[0042] As shown in FIG. IA, the light may be coupled into and
out of the panel 1 directly via the edge portion that connects the
top and bottom surfaces 4, 5 of the panel 1. Alternatively, a
separate coupling element ( e.g. in the shape of a wedge) may be
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 7, 14--16, and 20. As to
claims 5 and 11, Appellants merely repeat for these claims the same or
similar arguments directed to claim 1. (App. Br. 19-25). Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and
17-19. (App. Br. 25-27). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are
not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal2018-000710
Application 15/091,372
attached to the edge portion or to the top or bottom surface 4, 5
of the panel 1 to couple the light into and/or out of the panel 1.
(Emphasis added).
As to above contention 2, we agree with the Examiner's analysis
(Ans. 4) in response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with the Examiner
that Christiansson's determination of "location of the touching object 6
[that] is given by the intersection of the center rays" (i-f 53), and the
reconstruction of "attenuation paths" (i1i170, 72, Figure 5D) equates to the
claimed "calculating points of interception for the line equations."
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we disagree with Appellants'
arguments. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that Christiansson's
triangulation to determine touch points (i-f 85) equates to the claimed
"computing a centroid of the points of interception."
DECISION
(1) The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 14--16, and 20
as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is affirmed.
(2) The Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 17-
19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
(3) The Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5