Ex Parte Huska et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201713082293 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/082,293 04/07/2011 Andrew P. Huska 38018/121002 5817 111408 7590 11/30/2017 Osiha T iana T T P/S»vnar>tirsi EXAMINER 909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500 Houston, TX 77010 PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2017 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): hathaway@oshaliang.com docketing@oshaliang.com lord@oshaliang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW P. HUSKA, DOUGLAS M. KRUMPELMAN, and CODY G. PETERSON Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,2931 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Synaptics Inc. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 25, 2016; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 9, 2017; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed January 12, 2017; Final Office Action (“Final Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to methods and touchpad devices with capacitive force sensing for “determin[ing] a force of the user’s finger press on [a] user-engagement surface using one or more capacitance force- sensors” and providing “active tactile feedback (i.e., haptics) to the user’s finger touching the user-engagement surface.” Abstract. One such capacitive force-sensing touchpad (300) is shown in Appellants’ Figure 3, as reproduced below. USER-ENGAGEMENT Act.”) mailed February 25, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”), filed April 7, 2011. 2 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 Figure. 3 shows a capacitive force-sensing touchpad 300 configured to provide haptic feedback movement. Spec. H 13, 45, 51. As shown in Appellants’ Figure 3, touchpad 300 includes a touch surface (304); an upper actuation plane/spring plate (330), a lower actuation plane/second spring plate (340) including multiple capacitive sensors/capacitive force sensing strips (312, 314), a conductive layer/conductive interior region (334) disposed between the sensing strips (312, 314), and a return mechanism (springs 342, 344). Spec. H 13, 25, 30, 45—51. Conductive layer 334 generates a haptic feedback movement in response to user’s applied force detected by the capacitive sensors. Spec. 1148, 50-51, 156. Claims 1,7, 17, and 22 are independent. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A haptic force-sensing touchpad comprising: a user-engagement surface presented for contact by a user; a first spring plate operably associated with the user- engagement surface, wherein the first spring plate comprises a conductive layer; a second spring plate operably associated with the first spring plate, wherein the second spring plate comprises: a first capacitive force sensing strip disposed proximate a first edge of the second spring plate, a second capacitive force sensing strip disposed proximate a second edge of the second spring plate, and a conductive interior region disposed between the first capacitive force sensing strip and the second capacitive force sensing strip, wherein the first spring plate and the second spring plate are spaced-apart with a defined gap therebetween; 3 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 a return mechanism operably associated with the first spring plate or the second spring plate; a touch-sensing module operably associated with the user- engagement surface, the touch-sensing module being configured to determine an X/Y position of contact by the user with the user- engagement surface; a capacitive force-sensing module operably associated with the user engagement surface, the capacitive force-sensing module being configured to determine a force applied to the user- engagement surface in response to a change in a variable capacitance between the first capacitive force sensing strip and the conductive layer; and an active-feedback actuation mechanism operably associated with the user-engagement surface, the actuation mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the user in response to the force applied to the user engagement surface, wherein the conductive interior region is configured to generate a haptic movement, when activated by the active-feedback actuation mechanism, between the first spring plate and the second spring plate, and wherein the return mechanism is configured to restore, after the haptic movement, the defined gap between the first spring plate and the second spring plate. App. Br. 20-26 (Claims App’x). Examiner’s Rejections & References (1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bolender et al. (US 2010/0253645 Al; published Oct. 7, 2010) and Demuynck et al. (US 2010/0079379 Al; published Apr. 1, 2010; “Demuynck”). Final Act. 3—8. (2) Claims 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bolender, Grothe (US 2008/0303797 Al; published Dec. 11, 2008), and Demuynck. Final Act. 8—11. 4 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the combination of Bolender, Demuynck, and Grothe teaches or suggests the disputed “conductive interior region” that (i) is “disposed between the first capacitive force sensing strip and the second capacitive force sensing strip” in a “second spring plate,” and (ii) “is configured to generate a haptic movement, when activated by the active-feedback actuation mechanism,” “in response to the force applied to the user engagement surface,” as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 17, and 22. App. Br. 10-18; Reply Br. 2—8. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: a second spring plate operably associated with the first spring plate, wherein the second spring plate comprises: a first capacitive force sensing strip disposed proximate a first edge of the second spring plate, a second capacitive force sensing strip disposed proximate a second edge of the second spring plate, and a conductive interior region disposed between the first capacitive force sensing strip and the second capacitive force sensing strip . . .; and an active-feedback actuation mechanism operably associated with the user-engagement surface, the actuation mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the user in response to the force applied to the user-engagement surface by the user, wherein the conductive interior region is configured to generate haptic movement, when activated by the 5 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 active-feedback actuation mechanism, between the first spring plate and the second spring plate. App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App’x). With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Bolender’s input device, shown in Figure 2, teaches a force-sensing touchpad including a user- engagement surface presented for contact by a user (sensing region 118 including sensor electrodes 126); a first spring plate (structural component 124 including sensor electrodes 126) operably associated with the user- engagement surface, the first spring plate comprising a conductive layer (capacitive electrode 128), a second spring plate (base 138) comprising first and second capacitive force sensing strips (capacitive electrodes 136 in Figure 2, and 230 in Fig. 9), the second spring plate being spaced-apart from the first spring plate by a defined gap; and a return mechanism (biasing member/spring 130), as claimed. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Bolender || 38, 40- 43, 47, 72, Figs. 2 and 9). Bolender’s Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. COMPONENT 124 V'TTR RESPECT TO BASE 13S 6 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 Bolender’s Figure 2 shows an input device 122 with a capacitive force sensor for determining a force applied onto the input device by an input object (e.g., stylus or finger). Bolender || 18, 37, 39, Abstract. The Examiner further finds Bolender’s input device monitors a capacitance increase between electrodes 128 and 136, indicating a reduced distance between the electrodes is caused by an increasing force applied to the first spring plate by a finger, thereby teaching a capacitive force-sensing module that determines a force applied to the user-engagement surface in response to a capacitance change, as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Bolender H 44-48). Additionally, the Examiner finds Bolender’s biasing member may be dome-shaped, or another shape, to provide a monotonic or varying force-displacement response to forces that a typical user input would provide, thereby teaching an active-feedback actuation mechanism configured to provide tactile feedback to the user in response to the force applied to the user engagement surface, as claimed. Final Act. 4 (citing Bolender H 42^18, 54-55). To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Demuynck’s haptic feedback assembly for teaching the claimed “conductive interior region.” Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Demuynck’s conductive diaphragm—located between two conductive plates/grids in Figure 5—teaches a conductive interior region disposed between two capacitive force sensing strips as claimed. Final Act. 5 (citing Demuynck Fig. 5); Ans. 13, 16 (citing Demuynck || 59-60, 65—66). The Examiner further finds Demuynck’s conductive interior region (diaphragm sheet) acts as an electrostatic layer to generate the claimed haptic movement between the two grids. Final Act. 5 (citing Demuynck | 60, Fig. 5); Ans. 13. 7 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 Demuynck’s Figure 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. Demuynck’s Figure 3 illustrates a touch-sensitive input device 12 having a haptic feedback assembly 66. Demuynck || 32, 57. Demuynck’s Figure 5 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. HAPTIC FEEDBACK. ASSEMBLY Negatively Charged Diaphragm FIG. 5 Demuynck’s Figure 5 illustrates an electrostatic speaker employed in the haptic feedback assembly. Demuynck H 35, 60. 8 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 Appellants contend the combination of Bolender with Demuynck does not disclose “« conductive interior region of a spring plate that is disposed between a first capacitive force sensing strip and a second force sensing strip in the spring plate,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 11. We agree. Although Demuynck’s two conductive plates (grids) in Figure 5 fence a conductive region (diaphragm) therebetween, Demuynck’s grids are not first and second capacitive force sensing strips located in one spring plate, as claimed. App. Br. 12. Rather, Demuynck’s grids are in parallel planes separated by an air gap. App. Br. 12. That is, Demuynck’s grids are located in two parallel plates, rather than in a single plate (the “second spring plate”) as required by claim 1 ’s first and second sensing strips. App. Br. 12. Further, “the conductive interior region [diaphragm] of Demuynck is not disposed on the same plate as the two capacitive force sensing strips” as required by claim 1; rather, Demuynck’s diaphragm is separated from the grids’ planes by air gaps. App. Br. 12. Likewise, “Bolender and Grothe [used against independent claim 22] also fail to disclose a conductive interior region in the same plate between two capacitive electrodes.” App. Br. 12. Moreover, it would also not be feasible to “flatten” Demuynck’s grids and diaphragm into a single spring plate because the grids and diaphragm could not provide haptic feedback without air gaps between them. See Demuynck | 60 (“The grids are driven by the audio signal and result in a uniform electrostatic field proportional to the audio signal between both grids. This causes a force to be exerted on the charge diaphragm, and its resulting movement drives the air on either side of it” (emphasis added)). 9 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 In response, the Examiner finds that “one of the Demuynck capacitive planes in the haptic feedback system can readily combine with the spring plate in Bolender as both references discuss and encourage the flexibility in placing and combining capacitive and conductive plates for multiple purposes.” Ans. 13. That is, the Examiner suggests one of Demuynck’s grids/capacitive planes in Fig. 5 could be disposed in Bolender’s second spring plate 138 (see Bolender Fig. 2). We disagree with the Examiner, as Appellants point out “[tjhere is no ‘trivial and straightforward’ combination of a biasing member and capacitive electrode pair as disclosed in Bolender above or below the diaphragm of Demuynck” that extends in an air gap between two conductive plates across “an entire layer of [Demuynck’s] touch-sensitive input device 12.” Reply Br. 7—8 (citing Demuynck Figs. 3 and 5). We also do not find the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support the finding that the skilled artisan would modify Bolender’s second spring plate (138) to include one of Demuynck’s grids as a conductive interior region between two of Bolender’s sensing strips (136). We agree with Appellants the combination of Bolender and Demuynck does not disclose a conductive interior region “generating haptic movement or providing tactile feedback in response to a force,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13. Although Bolender determines a force applied to a touch surface based on capacitance changes between electrodes (see Bolender 144), Bolender does not provide haptic feedback in response to the force. App. Br. 17. Demuynck provides haptic feedback, but not in response to a force, and Demuynck “makes no mention of force sensing.” App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 6. Rather, Demuynck’s haptic feedback 10 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 assembly (i.e., diaphragm and grids in Figure 5) generates a haptic movement in response to an electrical audio signal generated by an audio circuit, as explained in paragraph 60: [T]he haptic feedback assembly 66 may include formation of an electrostatic speaker that is used to vibrate the combined capacitive sense EL keypad. ... For example, in one embodiment, the electrostatic speaker is created by placing an additional sheet of PET embedded with ITO to the bottom of the keypad and using the EL [electroluminescent] panel to drive the audio circuit. . . . [A]n electrostatic speaker typically uses a thin flat diaphragm . . . sandwiched or otherwise disposed between two electrically conductive grids (see FIG. 5, for example) with a small air gap between the diaphragm and grids. . . . [T]he diaphragm may be held at a DC potential of several kilovolts with respect to the grids. The grids are driven by the audio signal and result in a uniform electrostatic field proportional to the audio signal between both grids. This causes a force to be exerted on the charge diaphragm, and its resulting movement drives the air on either side of it. . . . [T]he electrostatic assembly may be driven in the range of the EL driver (e.g., in the range of about two-hundred volts). Demuynck | 60 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 6. The Examiner’s reasoning that “Bolender teaches the force sensor and since location is also detected, then it is a trivial and straightforward combination to utilize the haptic feedback of Demuynck with the force sensing of Bolender as well as the touch sensing of Bolender’'' (Ans. 14 (emphasis added)) is without any ‘“rational underpinning’” as required by KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); and In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (citation omitted)). Bolender’s force 11 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 sensing technology does not enable Demuynck’s haptic feedback assembly to provide haptic feedback in response to a force', rather, Demuynck’s haptic feedback assembly continues to provide haptic feedback in response to an electrical audio signal from an audio circuit. See Demuynck | 60. Thus, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Bolender and Demuynck teaches or suggests the claimed conductive interior region configured to generate a haptic movement in response to a force applied to a user engagement surface. The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Grothe make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Bolender and Demuynck. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 7, 17, and 22 similarly reciting a conductive interior region. See claim 7 (“the second spring plate comprises: a first capacitive force sensing strip . . ., a second capacitive force sensing strip . . ., and a conductive interior region disposed between the first capacitive force sensing strip and the second capacitive force sensing strip,” wherein “the conductive interior region is configured to generate haptic movement, when activated by the active-feedback actuation mechanism,” “in response to the force applied to the user-engagement surface by the user”), claim 17 (a second spring plate includes “a first capacitive force sensing strip proximate a first edge of the second spring plate” and “the conductive interior region [that] is disposed between the first capactive[sic] force sensing strip and a second capacitive force sensing strip proximate a second edge of the second spring plate,” the method comprising “generating, in response to triggering the active-feedback actuation 12 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 mechanism and using [the] conductive interior region, haptic movement between the first spring plate and the second spring plate,” wherein “the triggering is performed in response to, at least in part, the determined force”), and claim 22 (a second spring plate includes “a first capacitive force sensing strip in a second spring plate” and “a conductive interior region in the second spring plate, . . . wherein the conductive interior region is disposed between the first capacitive force sensing strip and a second capacitive force sensing strip in the second spring plate,” the method comprising “based, at least in part, upon ... the force input data, determining whether to provide an active tactile feedback to the user using a feedback actuation mechanism” and “in response to the determining and using the feedback actuation mechanism, facilitating haptic movement. . . wherein the haptic movement is facilitated using electrostatic forces generated by [the] conductive interior region in the second spring plate”). App. Br. 22—26 (Claims App’x). We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8—10, 12, 13, 18, 21, 25, and 26. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 13 Appeal 2017-006309 Application 13/082,293 DECISION As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26. REVERSED 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation