Ex Parte Dargan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

13241976 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
13/241,976 09/23/2011 Kenneth DARGAN 10-EDI-126/US (52902) 6176
117574 7590 02/17/2017
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. (ADDMG FOREIGN)
750 CANYON DRIVE
SUITE 300
COPPELL, TX 75019
EXAMINER
LIN, HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
ip.us@st.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH DARGAN
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,9761
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 13, 15—17, 19, 22—30, and 32^40, which
constitute of all of the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is STMicroelectronics
(Research & Development) Limited. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to a control device using an array of
single photon avalanche diodes (“SPAD”) and related methods. Abstract.
Claim 13 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows
13. A control device for controlling an associated electronic
device, the control device comprising:
a proximity detector comprising an array of single photon
avalanche diodes (SPAD);
an input surface configured to receive control input from
an object adjacent said input surface, the control input being for
the associated electronic device;
an illumination source configured to generate illumination
to be reflected by the object to said array of SPADs;
said proximity detector configured to measure movement
of the object; and
a controller coupled to said proximity detector and
configured to
adjust a first operation parameter based upon
movement of the object in first and second dimensions,
calculate a phase change between transmitted
illumination and the illumination received following
reflection from the object,
determine a range of the object based upon
operating said illumination source with a plurality of
different modulation frequencies,
adjust a second operation parameter based upon
movement of the object at different positions in a third
dimension using the phase change, the first operation
parameter being different than the second operation
parameter, and
control the electronic device based upon the first
and second operation parameters.
2
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 15—17, 19, 22—24, 26—30, 32, 33, and 35—40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Han (US
2006/0086896 Al; published Apr. 27, 2006), Niclass et al. (US
2006/0202129 Al; published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Niclass-1”), Hotelling et al.
(US 2008/0297487 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (“Hotelling”), Alameh et al.
(US 2010/0295772 Al; published Nov. 25, 2010 ) (“Alameh”), and Niclass
(US 2007/0182949 Al; published Aug. 9, 2007)(“Niclass-2”).
Claim 25 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Han, Niclass-1, Hotelling, Alameh,
Niclass-2, and Homma et al. (US 2010/0156830 Al; published June 24,
2010) (“Homma”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we 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 Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner found that Han teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except:
(i) the light sensors are of SPADs, for which the Examiner relied
onNiclass-1 (Non-Final Act. 5—6 (citing Niclass-11 5));
3
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
(ii) “a controller coupled to said proximity detector and configured
to adjust a first operation parameter based upon movement of the object in
first and second dimensions,” “adjust a second operation parameter based
upon movement of the object at a different position in a third dimension
using the phase change, the first operation being different than the second
operation parameter,” and “control the electronic device based upon the first
and second operation parameters,” for which the Examiner relied on
Hotelling (id. at 6—7 (citing Hotelling Fig. 5a, 10, 26, 44));
(iii) “adjust a second operation parameter based upon movement of
the object at a different position in a third dimension,” for which the
Examiner relied on Alameh (id. at 7—8 (citing Alameh | 111)); and
(iv) a controller configured to “calculate a phase change between
transmitted illumination and the illumination received following reflection
from the object,” “determine a range of the object based upon operating said
illumination source with a plurality of different modulation frequencies,”
and “adjust a second operation parameter based upon movement of the
object at a different positions in a third dimension using the phase change,”
for which the Examiner relied on Niclass-2 (id. 8—9 (citing Niclass-2 ]f]f 15—
17, 24, 78, 86)).
Rejection of Claims 13, 15—17, 19, 22—24, 26—30, 32, 33, and 35—40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends the cited portions of Niclass-2 do not disclose
determining a range of the object based upon operating the illumination
source with a plurality of different modulation frequencies, as claim 13
requires. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that Niclass-2 teaches the optical
source operating with a continuous modulation and, although Niclass-2 uses
4
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
changes in frequency for improved resolution, it does not use them in the
determination of range. Id. at 9-10 (citing Niclass-2 || 23, 47, 78).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellant attacks Niclass-2 individually even though the Examiner relies on
the combination of Han, Niclass-1, and Niclass-2 as teaching or suggesting
the disputed features. Non-Final Act. 3—9; Ans. 3^4; In reMouttet, 686 F.3d
1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”).
Moreover, the Examiner found that Han teaches a solid-state image sensor
based on avalanche photodiodes that measures the distance of objects in
addition to their intensity. Ans. 4 (citing Han 12). Appellant presents
insufficient persuasive explanation or objective evidence to rebut the
Examiner’s findings.
Appellant next contends Niclass-2 teaches away from the Examiner’s
proposed modification of Han with the teachings of Niclass-2. App. Br. 10.
In support of that contention, Appellant relies on the disclosure in Niclass-2
that “[cjontinuous modulation offers the advantage of using off-the-shelf and
therefore low-cost components in the illumination subsystem.” Id. (citing
Niclass-2 H 23-24.)
We are not persuaded that Niclass-2 teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed modification because Appellant has not identified
where Niclass-2 actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
use of multifrequency light sources. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
Appellant further contends the Examiner’s proffered rationale for
combining the teachings of Han and Niclass-2 “appears nonsensical to the
disclosure of Han” and “is tantamount to a conclusory statement and cannot
support a proper conclusion of obviousness.” App. Br. 11.
We disagree. We specifically find that the Examiner has articulated
(see Ans. 3—8) how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings
with some rational underpinning to combine Niclass-2’s teachings with
those of Han. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Moreover, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The Examiner’s proposed combination,
in which Han’s red diode detector is replaced with the SPAD taught in
Niclass-1 and Niclass-2 (see Ans. 6), is based on the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions and, thus, would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See id. at 417.
Appellant further contends the proposed modification of Han with the
teachings of Niclass-2 renders Han “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”
App. Br. 11. Appellant argues that an artisan of ordinary skill would
recognize that modifying Han with the SPAD teachings of Niclass-2, “which
by definition require reverse biasing the diode past the breakdown voltage,
would likely destroy the LEDs of Han.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that it would have been within the skill of
an ordinarily-skilled artisan to modify the detector of Han with the known
technique of using SPADs, as suggested by Niclass-2. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417) (“[l]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
6
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill” (citations omitted)). Appellant has not
persuaded us that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited
references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the
time of Appellant’s invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellant also contends the Examiner’s rationale for combining Han
and Hotelling is improper because “the addition of multi-dimensional
touchless gestures to a touch input device of Han would likely frustrate and
confuse the user.” App. Br. 12. Appellant further contends the Examiner’s
rationale for combining Han and Alameh is improper because it “is
insufficient and amounts to no more than a cursory statement of
obviousness.” Id. Appellant also contends the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Han and Niclass-2 is improper because it is “insufficient and
amounts to no more than a cursory statement of obviousness.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In each instance, the
Examiner has articulated some basis with rational underpinning to combine
the references. See Ans. 3—8. Appellant makes no persuasive substantive
arguments with regard to any of three disputed combinations. See App. Br.
12.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Han, Niclass-1, Hotelling, Alameh, and
Niclass-2 teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 13.
7
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 13, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 26 and 35, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 15—17, 19, 22—24, 27—30, 32, 33, and 36-40, for which
Appellant makes no additional arguments. Id.
Rejection of Claims 25 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 25 depends from claim 13 and recites the further limitation
“wherein said proximity detector comprises an elongate slide proximity
detector.” App. Br. 18. Claim 34, dependent from claim 26, recites
identical limitations as claim 25. See id. at 20. The Examiner relied on
Homma as teaching an elongate slide proximity detector. Non-Final Act. 24
(citing Homma Fig. 1, element 101a).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of
Homma with those of Han because the Examiner’s “generic rationale to
combine is largely identical to the rationale to combine Han and Hotelling et
al., Han and Alameh et al., and Han and Niclass.” App. Br. 13.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner articulated some basis with rational underpinning to combine the
references. Ans. 8. In addition, the Examiner explained that modifying Han
with the cited teachings of Homma would “make the device more versatile
and convenient for the user as it is able to perform more function[s] . . . .”
Id. Appellant makes no persuasive substantive arguments with regard to the
disputed combinations. See App. Br. 13.
8
Appeal 2016-000889
Application 13/241,976
Appellant also contends that modifying the Han with an elongate slide
proximity detector would “substantially impair” the display purpose of
Han’s array of LEDs. App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner found that “Han teaches the
principle of operation of the device can also be a touch sensing device as
recited in paragraph 18 of Han,” and modifying Han with Homma’s elongate
slide proximity detector would not impair the display purpose of Han’s array
of LEDs because “Han’s array of LEDs can be used for touch sensing
purpose only, or additional strips of LED as taught by Han can be used for
elongate slide proximity detector only.” Ans. 9. Appellant presents no
persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Han, Niclass-1, Hotelling, Alameh, Niclass-2, and Homma
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 25, and of claim 34, for which Appellant makes no additional
arguments. See App. Br. 13—14.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 13, 15—17,
19, 22—30, and 32^40.
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
9