Ex Parte HadwenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201814854607 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/854,607 09/15/2015 72119 7590 04/25/2018 MARK D. SARALINO (SHARP) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19THFLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Benjamin James Hadwen 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. SMSLP0106US 1934 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KEVIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2018 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): ipdocket@rennerotto.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BENJAMIN JAMES HADWEN 1 Appeal2017-010592 Application 14/854,607 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Microfluidic Solutions Ltd. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-010592 Application 14/854,607 INVENTION The invention is directed to an active matrix electro-wetting on dielectric device having a plurality of array elements, each array element including an actuation electrode and an impedance sensor circuit to determine a droplet property. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. An active matrix electro-wetting on dielectric (AM- EWOD) device comprising: a plurality of array elements arranged in an array of rows and columns, each of the array elements including array element circuitry, an element electrode, and a reference electrode; wherein the array element circuitry comprises: an actuation circuit configured to apply actuation voltages to the element and reference electrodes for actuating the array element; and an impedance sensor circuit configured to sense impedance at the array element electrode to determine a droplet property at the array element, and wherein the impedance sensor circuit is configured to be operated by perturbing a potential applied to the reference electrode. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 2010/0177026 Al, published July 15, 2010) ("Dijk") and Sturmer et al. (US 2010/0194408 published August 5, 2010) ("Sturmer"). Final Act. 2-6. 2 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed May 3, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief, filed August 10, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer, mailed June 26, 2017 ("Answer"), and the Final Office Action, mailed January 20, 2016 ("Final Act."). 2 Appeal2017-010592 Application 14/854,607 The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 11 and 1 7 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dijk, Sturmer, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 6-9. The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dijk, Sturmer and Hagood et al. (US 2007/0086078 Al, April 19, 2007) ("Hagood"). Final Act. 9--10. ANALYSIS Appellant argues, on pages 8 through 16 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dijk and Sturmer teaches that each of the array elements of the electro-wetting on dielectric device includes array element circuitry which comprises an impedance sensor circuit to sense impedance at the array element electrode as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 14. Appellant's arguments persuade us of error. The Examiner, in the Final Action, finds that Dijk teaches an array of elements in an electro- wetting on dielectric device but that Dijk does not teach an impedance sensor circuit to sense impedance to determine a droplet property. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds that Sturmer also teaches an electro-wetting on dielectric device, and that Sturmer teaches an actuating element and an impedance sensor circuit. Final Act. 3; Answer 5-7. In the Examiner's Answer, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner also finds that Dijk teaches an impedance sensor ( equating the capacitor 21 to the claimed 3 Appeal2017-010592 Application 14/854,607 impedance sensor), thus teaching each array element having an impedance sensor. Answer 3 (citing Dijk paragraph 0047, Figs. 2a and 7). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the combination of the references teaches that each array element of the electro- wetting on dielectric device includes array element circuitry having an impedance sensor circuit as claimed. We concur with the Examiner's finding on page 6 of the Answer, that Strummer teaches an impedance sensor circuit 836. See Fig. 8, and discussion in paragraphs 59---61. However, as argued by Appellant on pages 11 through 13 of the Appeal Brief, Sturmer teaches one impedance sensor is associated with multiple elements of an electro-wetting on dielectric device. See Sturmer Fig. 9 and paragraph 63. In response to the Examiner's findings in the Answer that Dijk teaches the claimed impedance sensor, Appellant argues: Capacitor 21 is not an impedance sensor as claimed. Rather, capacitor 21 retains a charge to maintain the voltage at the switch 23, referred to as the "holding state". (Van Dijk at paragraph [ 004 7].) This is not a sensing operation and thus capacitor 21 is not part of any impedance sensor circuit. Indeed, for the reasons stated above, no sensing operation is performed in the display device of Van Dijk because a sensing operation would have no technical value. Reply Br. 4. We concur with Appellant's argument, and we do not find that Dijk's teachings identify that capacitor 21 is used as an impedance sensor circuit to sense impedance to determine a droplet property as claimed. Rather, as Appellant argues, the capacitor holds the array element in a state. Reply Br. 2. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that every element of the independent claims is taught or obvious over the prior art and 4 Appeal2017-010592 Application 14/854,607 we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 14, or dependent claims 2 through 4, 15, and 16, which are similarly rejected. The Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5 through 13 and 17 through 20 similarly rely upon the combination of Dijk and Sturmer to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 14. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in the rejections of these claims make up for the deficiencies noted above in the rejection of claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 5 through 13 and 17 through 20 for the same reasons as provided with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation