Ex Parte Fertl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13879461 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/879,461 07/03/2013 Daniela Fertl 03869.119175 5006
86528 7590 05/02/2017
Slay den Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
ONYEKABA, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
trosson @ sgbfirm.com
patent @ sgbfirm. com
dallen @ sgbfirm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIELA FERTL, FRITJOF KAISER, and
INES STEINKE
Appeal 2017-000068
Application 13/879,461
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 15 and 18—31, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. See App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-000068
Application 13/879,461
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to an appliance, such as a watch or
mobile phone, “with an operating unit in which a mechanically-actuatable
operating element can be very well protected against unwanted triggering of
a pre-determined action” in which “sensing of skin contact ensures that the
actuation element is not inadvertently actuated with other objects.” Spec.
115,7.
Claim 15 is the sole independent claim, and is reproduced below for
reference:
15. An appliance with an operating unit, comprising:
an actuation element to trigger a pre-determined action,
the actuation element being actuated by mechanical force of a
user on the actuation element; and
a touch-sensitive sensor provided for the actuation unit, to
detect skin contact which occurs as a result of the mechanical
force on the actuation element,
wherein the appliance triggers the pre-determined action
only if the actuation element has been actuated by the mechanical
force of the user and the touch-sensitive sensor has detected skin
contact during actuation of the actuation element, wherein
the actuation element comprises a switch and/or button
element with an actuation surface on which the mechanical force
is exerted during actuation of the actuation element,
the touch-sensitive sensor is integrated into the actuation
surface such that the touch-sensitive sensor detects skin contact
with the actuation surface,
the switch and/or button element is actuated by pressure
and/or tension, and
the switch and/or button element comprises a pushbutton.
2
Appeal 2017-000068
Application 13/879,461
The Examiner’s References and Rejections
Claims 15, 18, 19, 22—25, and 27—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Lyons (US 2009/0059730 Al; Mar. 5,
2009). Final Act. 3.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lyons and Bom (US 7,031,228 B2; Apr. 18, 2006). Final
Act. 9.
Claims 26 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lyons and Hennings-Kampa (US 8,059,491 Bl; Nov. 15,
2011). Final Act. 10.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lyons and Tran (US 2008/0001735 Al; Jan. 3, 2008).
Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 15,
because “Lyons does not distinguish skin contact from other types of
contact,” and therefore “Lyons does not teach the claimed features of ‘the
appliance triggers the pre-determined action only if the actuation element
has been actuated by the mechanical force of the user and the touch-sensitive
sensor has detected skin contact during actuation of the actuation element.’”
App. Br. 11—12. Particularly, Appellants contend “Lyons does not teach the
feature that an action is triggered only when skin contact is detected. Rather,
Lyons merely teaches to actuate a function upon detection of a capacitance.”
Reply Br. 5 (emphases omitted).
3
Appeal 2017-000068
Application 13/879,461
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As cited by the Examiner
(see Final Act. 4), Lyons discloses the following:
[w]hen a user touches the bezel 114 with his or her fingertip (or
other conductive object) the electric field around one or more of
the sensor pads 122 is changed. The integrated circuit 124 detects
changes in capacitance on the pads 122 and outputs the position
of the finger on the bezel 114 as detected by the sensor 118.
Lyons 126 (emphasis added). Thus, in the appliance disclosed by Lyons, a
conductive object other than the skin contact of a fingertip pressing on bezel
114 would be treated in the same manner as a fingertip touch. In contrast,
Claim 15 requires that “the appliance triggers the pre-determined action only
if the actuation element has been actuated by the mechanical force of the
user and the touch-sensitive sensor has detected skin contact during
actuation of the actuation element” (emphasis added). Lyons is not
encompassed by the claim language, because Lyons will trigger an action
without the detection of skin contact (i.e., Lyons will trigger the action upon
the touch of any conductive object).
Thus, we find Lyons does not disclose all limitations recited by
independent claim 15. We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
15, and the rejections of the claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 15 and 18—31 are reversed.
REVERSED
4