Ex Parte Hill

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2014

11561111 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICHOLAS P. R. HILL
____________

Appeal 2011-011610
Application 11/581,111
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and DAVID M. KOHUT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-18 and 20-29. Claim 19 was withdrawn from
consideration. App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 24,
2011 (supplemented March 7, 2011) (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 14, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June
14, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-011610
Application 11/561,111

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention detects and processes information based on the
location of a contact made on a panel or screen. Specifically, bending wave
vibration is measured and resulting signals are corrected to convert them to
propagation signals from a non-dispersive wave source. See generally Spec.
2-4, 20-21. Claim 1 is illustrative with our emphasis:
1. A method of determining information relating to a contact on an
active contact sensitive device comprising the steps of:
providing a panel-form member capable of supporting bending wave
vibration;
generating bending wave vibration in the member from one location
on the member to probe for information relating to a contact;
contacting the member at a discrete location to produce a change in
the generated bending wave vibration in the member;
measuring the changed bending wave vibration in the member at two
locations on the member to determine a measured bending wave signal; and
processing the measured bending wave signal to calculate information
relating to the contact including applying a correction to convert the
measured bending wave signal to a propagation signal from a non-
dispersive wave source.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 and 20-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kent (US 5,854,450; issued Dec. 29, 1998). Ans.
3-14.

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the functionality of Kent’s touchscreen in
Figure 13(a) discloses every recited element of claim 1 except for applying a
correction to convert a measured bending wave signal to a propagation
signal from a non-dispersive wave source. The Examiner, however, cites
Appeal 2011-011610
Application 11/561,111

3
Kent’s background section that is said to apply this correction by attenuating
original waves to convert a measured “bending wave signal” (surface
acoustic waves) to a “propagation signal” (superposed wave) from a “non-
dispersive source,” namely a cover sheet. Ans. 3-5, 14-17. According to the
Examiner, Kent’s surface acoustic waves (SAWs) are “bending waves”
because their direction changes. Ans. 17.
Appellant argues that not only are Kent’s SAWs not bending waves
as defined in the Specification, but Kent also does not apply a correction to
convert a bending wave signal to a propagation signal from a non-dispersive
wave source, as claimed. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-5.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kent would have taught or suggested applying a correction to convert a
measured bending wave signal to a propagation signal from a non-dispersive
wave source?

ANALYSIS
We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 for the reasons indicated by Appellant. App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 2-5. A key aspect of claim 1 is that it recites measuring bending
wave vibration to produce a bending wave signal that is corrected for
conversion to a propagation signal from a non-dispersive source.
The Specification defines bending wave vibration as “an excitation,
for example by the contact, which imparts some out of plane displacement to
the member.” Spec. 3 (emphasis added). This displacement of the member
Appeal 2011-011610
Application 11/561,111

4
itself in propagating bending waves for contact detection has various
advantages over conventional touch-sensing technologies that rely on
surface effects including, among other things, (1) the ability to detect contact
pressure or size in addition to location, (2) reduced sensitivity to surface
scratches, and (3) less cost. Spec. 2-4, 20-21.
The problem, however, with bending waves is that they are dispersive:
their in-plane velocity depends on frequency, and the contact’s disturbance
spreads progressively over time as shown in Figures 10a and 10b. Spec. 3,
30-31. This dispersion renders any conventional time-based measurement
approaches used for SAWs problematic for bending waves, for SAWs rely
on the medium’s non-dispersive characteristics where the waves’ velocity is
relatively constant over a given frequency range. Spec. 1, 3. Appellant’s
invention solves this problem by converting the measured bending wave
signal to a propagation signal from a non-dispersive source so that
conventional techniques can be used to determine contact location. See
Spec. 3, 29-32; Figs. 10a-d.
Given this functionality, the Examiner’s rejection is untenable. First,
the Examiner’s mapping Kent’s SAW-based signal to the recited bending
wave signal (Ans. 5, 15) ignores the distinction between these signals. As
noted above, a bending wave signal involves a member’s out-of-plane
displacement in producing bending waves that are dispersed. No such
displacement is a factor in conventional time-based SAW contact detections
such as those in Kent, for surface waves are detected from a non-dispersive
source. See Kent, col. 1, ll. 24-43; col. 2, l. 32 – col. 3, l. 25. In short, there
is no bending wave vibration measured in Kent, nor is there any reason to
Appeal 2011-011610
Application 11/561,111

5
convert an associated signal to a propagation signal from a non-dispersive
source as claimed because it already is such a signal.
To the extent that the Examiner’s position is based on the changed
direction of reflected portions of Kent’s SAWs as constituting “bending
wave” signals (see Ans. 17), we disagree, for this position ignores the
fundamental displacement-based aspects of bending waves defined in the
Specification noted previously. The Examiner’s equating Kent’s attenuating
originated waves to the recited correction (Ans. 17) is likewise unavailing,
for not only are Kent’s surface waves not bending waves, but there is no
reason to convert the associated signals to non-dispersive propagation
signals as noted above.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 12, 20, 23, and 24 which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, 21, 22, and
25-29 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 20-29 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 20-29 is reversed.

REVERSED

sld