Ex Parte Hill

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2010

10850516 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANTHONY L. HILL
____________________

Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to vibration-sensing touch
sensors that include at least two sets of vibration sensors (Spec. 2:29-3:1).
Independent claims 1 and 20, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A touch sensor, comprising:
a touch plate;
a first set of vibration sensors mechanically coupled to the
touch plate and defining a first touch region;
a second set of vibration sensors mechanically coupled to the
touch plate and defining a second touch region different from
the first touch region; and
an acoustic damper disposed between the first touch region and
the second touch region,
wherein the vibration sensors of the first set and the second set
are capable of sensing vibrations propagating in the touch plate
indicative of a touch input to the touch plate and are configured
to communicate signals representing sensed vibrations to
controller electronics for determining information related to the
touch input.
20. A touch sensor, comprising:
a touch plate;
a first set of bending wave vibration sensors mechanically
coupled to the touch plate and defining a first touch region; and
a second set of bending wave vibration sensors mechanically
coupled to the touch plate and defining a second touch region
different from the first touch region,
Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

3
wherein the bending wave vibration sensors of the first set and
the second set are capable of sensing bending wave vibrations
propagating in the touch plate indicative of a touch input to the
touch plate and are configured to communicate signals
representing sensed bending wave vibrations to controller
electronics for determining information related to the touch
input.

REFERENCES
Kawakami US 5,491,305 Feb. 13, 1996
Kent WO 98/07127 Feb. 19, 1998
Hill US 7,157,649 B2 Jan. 2, 2007
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 17-22, and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kent.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Kent and Kawakami.
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kent.
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Kent and Hill.
Appellant contends Kent fails to disclose first and second touch
regions. Appellant also contends Kent fails to disclose an acoustic damper
disposed between first and second touch regions.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Kent teaches first and second
touch regions?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Kent teaches an acoustic damper
disposed between first and second touch regions?
Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Kent teaches a touch sensor including a sensor substrate
wherein sides of the substrate are subdivided into a plurality of segmented
reflective arrays, each segment 1601 having a transducer at one end.
Segmented arrays can create blind spots at the junction of adjacent segments
where the transducers are located. (Pages 37:30-38:22; Figs. 16(a), 16(b).)
2. Kent teaches acoustic damping materials are placed at least at
portions of the perimeter of the substrate of the touch sensor to eliminate
possible reflections (Pages 62:29-63:4).
3. Kent also teaches a hexagonal touch sensor including six sensor
subsystems. Each sensor subsystem provides acoustic paths between pairs
of transducers; each pair of transducers covers a different trapezoidal area of
the touch sensor. (Page 77:1-10; Fig. 15(b).)

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-14, 17-19, and 22
The Examiner finds Kent discloses a touch sensor having segmented
arrays of transducers that create blind spots at the junction of adjacent
segments (Ans. 3, 11). Further, the Examiner asserts, Kent discloses
acoustic dampers along the substrate edges (Ans. 3, 11). The Examiner
argues Kent teaches an acoustic damper located at a blind spot between
adjacent segmented transducers, and thus meets the limitation of an acoustic
damper disposed between first and second touch regions (Ans. 3-4, 11-12).
Appellant argues Kent’s blind spots are not located between touch
regions and are not acoustic dampers (App. Br. 10). Appellant further
Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

5
argues Kent’s acoustic dampers are not disposed between touch regions
(App. Br. 11-12).
As Appellant contends, Kent’s blind spots are not acoustic dampers.
Acoustic dampers absorb acoustic wave energy to suppress waves. In
contrast, Kent’s blind spots are simply locations on sides of the substrate
where acoustic waves contact a receiving transducer, rather than a reflective
portion of the segmented array. (App. Br. 10; FF 1) Further, as Appellant
asserts, there is no suggestion in Kent for placing acoustic dampers between
adjacent segmented arrays, i.e., at blind spots (App. Br. 11). Rather, as
noted above, Kent’s acoustic dampers are located on the periphery of the
substrate (FF 2), and not between adjacent segmented arrays or touch
regions (App. Br. 11-12). Furthermore, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “acoustic dampers at the periphery of the hexagonal
sensor are . . . ‘between’ the first and second touch regions since they are in
the position or interval separating the first and second regions” (Ans. 12).
Thus, Kent does not teach all the features of independent claim 1, or
independent claim 19 which recites similar limitations. Kent also does not
anticipate claims 3-6, 9-14, 17, and 18, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 (addressed below), but contains the
limitation found in claim 1 that the touch sensor includes an acoustic damper
between the first and second touch regions. Thus, for the above reasons,
Kent does not anticipate claim 22.
Claim 20, 21, and 24
Appellant argues Kent fails to disclose first and second touch regions.
However, as the Examiner finds, Kent discloses a touch sensor having
different touch regions defined by each of six sensor subsystems (FF 3; Ans.
Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

6
10-11). Appellant’s argument that the six sensor subsystems overlap within
a single touch region to provide redundancy and therefore are not separate
touch regions, is not persuasive (App. Br. 18). Although the touch regions
in Figure 15(b) overlap, each touch region covers an area different from each
of the other touch regions; each region is a separate touch region
corresponding to Appellant’s claimed first and second touch regions.
Therefore, Kent anticipates claim 20 and dependent claims 21 and 24, which
have not been separately argued.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16
Appellant argues claims 7, 8, 15, and 16, which depend from claim 1,
are not obvious over Kent (claims 15 and 16) or Kent and Kawakami (claims
7 and 8), as neither reference discloses an acoustic damper disposed between
first and second touch regions (App. Br. 14). As asserted by Appellant,
since Kawakami does not teach this feature, it does not cure Kent of its
deficiencies. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 over Kent and Kawakami.
Claim 23
Appellant reasserts the argument made with respect to claim 20, from
which claim 23 depends, that Kent fails to disclose multiple touch regions
and Hill does not remedy this deficiency (App. Br. 20). As discussed above
with respect to claim 20, Kent discloses this feature. Appellant provided no
arguments regarding correcting for frequency dispersion effects for which
Hill was cited. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 23
over Kent and Hill.

Appeal 2009-006815
Application 10/850,516

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20, 21, 23, and 24 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-19, and 22 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427