Ex Parte Guard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 4, 201613347859 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/347,859 0111112012 12323 7590 08/08/2016 Baker Botts L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Brent Guard 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. 080900.1424 9874 EXAMINER LANDIS, LISA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/08/2016 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): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID BRENT GUARD, ESAT YILMAZ, and TSUNG-CHING WU Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 12 and 20 are cancelled. (Claims App'x 2-3.) We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed invention relates to: 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Atmel Corporation. (Br. 2.) Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 position sensor[ s that] can detect the presence and location of a touch by a finger or by an object, such as a stylus, within an area of an external interface of the position sensor. In a touch sensitive display application, the position sensor enables, in some circumstances, direct interaction with information displayed on the screen, rather than indirectly via a mouse or touch pad. (Spec. i-f 1.) Representative claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: a touch sensor comprising one or more electrodes formed from a first mesh of conductive material and a second mesh of conductive material, each of the meshes formed from a plurality of conductive lines, a first one of the conductive lines having a varying width over at least a portion of a length of the first one of the conductive lines, the first one of the conductive lines being coupled to a second one of the conductive lines, the second one of the conductive lines having a varying width over at least a portion of a length of the second one of the conductive lines; and one or n1ore con1puter-readable non-transito1y storage media coupled to the touch sensor and embodying logic that is configured when executed to control the touch sensor. Claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2011/0310033 Al; Dec. 22, 2011) ("Liu"), Mackey (US 2004/0239650 Al; Dec. 2, 2004) and Hong et al. (US 2011/0007020 Al; Jan 13, 2011) ("Hong"). (See Non-Final Act. 3-10.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br." filed Mar. 28, 2014) and the Specification ("Spec." filed Jan. 11, 2012) for the positions of Appellants, and the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act." mailed Nov. 1, 2013) and Examiner's Answer ("Ans." 2 Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 mailed July 17, 2014) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). ISSUES Appellants argue independent claims 1, 5, and 13 together (see Br. 17-22) and present no separate arguments for claims 2--4, 6-11, and 14--19, which depend from claims 1, 5, and 13 respectively (see Br. 22). Appellants argue claims 21 and 22 together. (See Br. 22-23). Therefore, we select claim 1 as the representative claim for claims 1-11 and 13-19, and claim 21 as the representative claim for claims 21 and 22, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The issues presented by Appellants' arguments are as follows: Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Liu, Mackey, and Hong teaches or suggests: a touch sensor comprising one or more electrodes formed from a first mesh of conductive material and a second mesh of conductive material, each of the meshes formed from a plurality of conductive lines, a first one of the conductive lines having a varying width over at least a portion of a length of the first one of the conductive lines, as recited in claim 1. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Liu, Mackey, and Hong teaches or suggests: wherein the first one of the conductive lines crosses over, without touching, one of the second plurality of conductive lines at a position on the first one of the conductive lines 3 Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 with a reduced width and at a position on the one of the second plurality of conductive lines with a reduced width, as recited in claim 21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and explanations regarding claims 1 and 21 (Non-Final Act. 3---6, 9-10; Ans. 2- 7) in light of Appellants' arguments and contentions (Br. 14--23). Appellants' arguments and contentions do not persuasively demonstrate Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner's findings and explanations, and we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. Claim 1 The Examiner relies on Liu to teach "a touch sensor comprising one or more electrodes formed from a first mesh of conductive material and a second mesh of conductive material, each of the meshes formed from a plurality of conductive lines," as recited in claim 1. (See Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing Liu i-fi-137-39, 41).) The Examiner maps the recited "conductive lines" to Liu's "traces" that make up Liu's "mesh pattern electrode." (Id.; see Liu Figs. lC-D, 3A-B, 5A-B, 6A-B.) The Examiner relies on Mackey to teach "a touch sensor comprising ... a plurality of conductive lines, a first one of the conductive lines having a varying width over at least a portion of a length of the first one of the conductive lines," as recited in claim 1. (Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Mackey i151, Fig. 13 (item 308d)).) The Examiner maps the recited "conductive lines" to Mackey's "conductive traces" that make up the "cell[s]" (see Mackey 4 Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 Fig. 2) ofMackey's "capacitive sensor pattern" (id. if 51). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Liu's traces that make up its mesh pattern electrode to vary the width of the traces as taught by Mackey. (Non-Final Act. 4--5.) Appellants' argument is summarized by the following contention: Even assuming for the sake of argument that it was appropriate to combine the relied-upon portions of Liu with this teaching of Mackey, at best the resulting combination would only cause the perimeter of the drive/sense lines of Liu to vary in width. The resulting combination would not cause the traces of Liu (which the Office Action equates to the claimed "conductive lines," an equation Appellants do not concede is appropriate) to have a varying width. (Br. 18.) We disagree with Appellants. The test of obviousness is not whether one reference can be bodily inserted into another, but, "[r]ather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art," In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), who is a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), and whose inferences and creative steps we may consider, id. at 418. Mackey's sensor pattern is made up of a plurality of cells having a spiral pattern, which is, in tum, made up of a plurality of conductive traces. (See Ans. 5 (citing Mackey Fig. 2); see also Mackey Fig 3).) Mackey teaches that the individual conductive traces forming the spiral pattern may be varied in width in order, inter alia, "to adjust their optical density" (Mackey ii 51; see id. Fig. 13), i.e., to "reduce[] negative optical artifacts" (Non-Final Act. 5). 5 Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, using no more than ordinary skill and creativity, would have recognized that varying the trace widths ofLiu's mesh pattern, as taught by the varying conductive trace widths of Mackey's spiral pattern of conductive traces, would predictably improve Liu's mesh pattern of traces in the same way as it improves Mackey's spiral pattern of conductive traces. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants do not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2-11 and 13-19, which fall with claim 1. Claim 21 The Examiner relies on Liu to teach "wherein the first one of the conductive lines crosses over, without touching, one of the second plurality of conductive lines," as recited in claim 21. (Non-Final Act. 9-10 (citing Liu i-f 61 ). ) The Examiner relies on Mackey to teach wherein the first one of the conductive lines crosses over . . . one of the second plurality of conductive lines at a position on the first one of the conductive lines with a reduced width and at a position on the one of the second plurality of conductive lines with a reduced width, as recited in claim 21. (Non-Final Act. 10 (citing Mackey i-f 51, Fig. 13 (item 308d).) The Examiner explains "[l]ooking ... at the enlarged version of figure 13 [ (reproduced at Ans. 7)], where the traces cross ... are of a smaller width than width of the traces just prior to where they cross." (Ans. 6.) Appellants contend as follows: 6 Appeal2014-009860 Application 13/347,859 [T]he [Non-Final] Office Action merely provides a conclusory allegation that Mackey 's teaching of "any configuration and width" discloses "wherein the first one of the conductive lines crosses over, without touching, one of the second plurality of conductive lines at a position on the first one of the conductive lines with a reduced width and at a position on the one of the second plurality of conductive lines with a reduced width," as recited in Claim 21. [Non-Final] Office Action at Page 10. In light of this deficiency, the [Non-Final] Office Action has not provided a prima facie case of obviousness. (Br. 23.) Appellants do not address the Examiner's reliance on Liu in combination with Mackey and do not address the Examiner's reliance on Mackey's Figure 13. Accordingly, the Appellants arguments are not commensurate with the ground of rejection articulated by the Examiner and are, therefore, unpersuasive of error. Cf Keller, 642 F .2d at 426 ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). Appellants do not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 21 and claim 22, which falls with claim 21. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11, 13-19, 21, and 22 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). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation