Ex Parte Hotelling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12549229 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/549,229 08/27/2009 Steven Porter HOTELLING
69753 7590 07115/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
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.
106842009710
(P3782USD1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8595
EXAMINER
HORNER, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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):
EOfficeLA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN PORTER HOTELLING, CHRISTOPH HORST KRAH,
and BRIAN QUENTIN HUPPI
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TT TT-.i. TC"I,,........,. T""ti. ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1 w 11'\J ~UK, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--24, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5 and
13 are cancelled. (App. Br. 2.)
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Apple Inc. (App. Br.
2.)
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, which is illustrative of Appellants' disclosed invention, reads
as follows:
1. A charge amplifier for detecting changes in
capacitance at one or more touch nodes of a touch sensor
panel, comprising:
an operational amplifier having a non-inverting input
terminal, an inverting input terminal coupled to the one or
more touch nodes, and an output terminal;
a feedback capacitor connected between the output
terminal and the inverting input terminal, wherein the
feedback capacitor is programmable to take on a range of
values; and
a feedback resistor connected between the output
terminal and the inverting input terminal, wherein the
feedback resistor is programmable to take on a range of
values,
wherein a capacitance of the feedback capacitor is set
on a per-node basis using a value having a component
adjustable on a row by row basis.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Smisko us 4,902,886 Feb.20, 1990
Kozlowski et al. us 5,892,540 Apr. 6, 1999
("Kozlowski").
Westerman et al. US 6,323,846 Bl Nov. 27, 2001
("Westerman")
Holcombe US 2006/0133600 Al June 22, 2006
Liu et al. US 2007 /0007438 Al Jan. 11, 2007
("Liu")
2
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
The Examiner refers to Higuchi et al. (US 2004/0187577 Al,
published Sept. 30, 2004) for its evidentiary value (see Final Act. 4), but
does not explicitly rely on it in rejecting the claims.
Claims 1, 3--4, 6-7, 11-12, 14--15, and 17-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Westerman and Kozlowski. 2
(See Final Act. 2-5.)
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Westerman, Kozlowski, and Holcombe. (See Final Act.
6.)
Claims 8-10, 16, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Westerman, Kozlowski, 3 and Smisko. (See Final
Act. 6-9.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed May 22, 2014, "Reply Br." filed Sept. 11, 2014) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Aug. 27, 2009) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Nov. 5, 2013) and
Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed July 17, 2014) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner.
2 We note that the Examiner takes Official Notice of certain facts (see, e.g.,
Final Act. 4) that are not disputed by Appellants in this appeal.
3 Although not mentioned in the summary ground of rejection (App. Br. 6),
the Examiner relies on Kozlowski in the detailed explanation of the ground
of rejection (App. Br. 7-9). Conversely, although the Examiner mentions
Liu in the summary ground of rejection (App. Br. 6), the Examiner makes no
findings regarding Liu in the detailed explanation of the ground of rejection
(App. Br. 7-9). We find the omission of Kozlowski and the inclusion of Liu
in the summary ground of rejection is a typographical error that does not
prejudice Appellants' ability to respond to the ground of rejection (see, e.g.,
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2).
3
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' contentions is whether
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Westerman and Kozlowski
teaches or suggests "a capacitance of [a programmable] feedback capacitor
[connected between the output terminal and the inverting input terminal of
an operational amplifier] is set on a per-node basis using a value having a
component adjustable on a row by row basis" (hereinafter the "capacitance
setting limitation"), as recited in claim 1. 4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kozlowski, when combined with Westerman,
teaches the capacitance setting limitation. (Final Act. 3 (citing Kozlowski
col. 5, 1. 44 - col. 6, 1. 3, Fig. 1; see also Ans. 2-10 (additionally citing
Kozlowski col. 8, 11. 48-50, 54--58).) The Examiner concludes as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to have the feedback capacitor of
Westerman et al. be programmable such that the capacitance is
set on a per-node basis as taught by Kozlowski et al. because an
optimum load capacitance can be selected as required to limit the
bandwidth and thus control noise (Kozlowski et al: col. 5 lines
65-67 and col. 6 lines 1-3).
(Final Act. 4.)
Appellants contend as follows:
[T]here is no disclosure or suggestion [in Kozlowski] that the
capacitance of either the small feedback capacitor 26 or any of
the parallel feedback capacitors 30A-30D can be set "on a per-
node basis using a value having a component adjustable on a row
by row basis." ... Kozlowski ... fails to disclose using a value
4 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional issues.
4
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
having a component adjustable on a row by row basis to set the
capacitance of a feedback capacitor.
(App. Br. 6.)
We agree with the Examiner that Kozlowski, when combined with
Westerman, teaches a charge amplifier, i.e., capacitive transimpedance
amplifier (CTIA) 22 (Kozlowski col. 5, 11. 50-55, Fig. 1), having a
programmable feedback capacitor, i.e., capacitor 26 combined with
capacitors 30A-D and their associated switches (not numbered) (id. col. 5,
11. 56-62, Fig. 1)). (See Ans. 2-7.) We agree that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that Kozlowski's Figure 1 (items 26, 30A-B)
illustrates an embodiment of a programmable capacitor in which the
capacitance of the capacitor combination can be programmed or set by
selectively turning on or off the associated unnumbered switches. (See id.)
However, we agree with Appellants that Kozlowski does not teach that the
"capacitance ... is set on a per-node basis using a value having a
component adjustable on a row by row basis," as recited in the capacitance
setting limitation of claim 1.
We find nothing in the cited passages of Kozlowski that teaches or
suggests that Kozlowski's feedback capacitor is set on a per-node basis.
That is to say, we see nothing in the cited passages of Kozlowski that
teaches that the selection of the unnumbered switches associated with
capacitors 30A-D occurs on a per-node basis. Indeed, other than stating that
"[t]he sensitivity of CTIA 22 can be adjusted by selecting one or more gain-
setting, parallel 60 feedback capacitors 30A-30D, in any combination, with
the minimum feedback capacitance 26" (id. col. 5, 11. 59---62), the cited
passages of Kozlowski provide no criteria for selecting the unnumbered
switches associated with capacitors 30A-D.
5
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
The Examiner reasons that because CTIA 22 is reset by switch 32
connected across capacitors 26 and 30A-D after each row is read, the
capacitance is "set on a per-node basis using a value having a component
adjustable on a row by row basis." (See Ans. 8-9.) We disagree. Merely
resetting the CTIA by discharging the capacitors 26, 30A-D does not set the
capacitance on a per-node basis, as Kozlowski does not teach
reprogramming the programmable capacitor for the next node to be read
after the resetting occurs.
Alternatively, the Examiner reasons that Kozlowski' s disclosure, of
modulating the metering gate on a row-by-row basis and reference voltage
REFl on column-by-column basis to produce a checkerboard pattern,
teaches the capacitance setting limitation. (Ans. 9 (citing Kozlowski col. 8,
11. 54--58).) In particular, the Examiner relies on Kozlowski's teaching that
the metering gate is modulated by "modulating the gate voltage to meter a
precise packet of charge onto the photodiode capacitance by charge
equilibration." (Id. (quoting Kozlowski col. 5, 11. 48-50).) We fail to see
how this passage teaches setting the capacitance of the programmable
feedback capacitors on a per node basis, or otherwise. The Examiner
appears to be conflating the capacitance of a capacitor with its stored charge.
The Examiner does not establish that Kozlowski, when combined with
Westerman, teaches or suggests the capacitance setting limitation.
Appellants persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejections over various combinations of Westerman,
Kozlowski, Holcombe, and Smisko of (1) independent claim 1; (2)
independent claims 8, 11, 17, 21, and 22, each of which recites a limitation
substantially similar to the capacitance setting limitation (compare App. Br.
6
Appeal2014-009859
Application 12/549,229
10-13 with App. Br. 9); and (3) claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14--20, 23, and
24, which variously depend from claims 1, 8, 11, 17, and 22, see In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Dependent claims are nonobvious
under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.").
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7