Ex Parte Konradi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201713342673 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 13/342,673 01/03/2012 Vadim Konradi 1052-0105 9989 89320 7590 02/02/2017 Polansky & Associates, P.L.L.C. 12600 Hill Country Blvd Suite R-275 Austin, TX 78738 EXAMINER GYAWALI, BIPIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): ppolansky@patentwerks.net admin @ patent werks. net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VADIM KONRADI, PARKER DORRIS, MICHAEL FRANKLIN, and DAVID R. WELLAND Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,6731 Technology Center 2600 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—15 and 21—24. Claims 16—20 have been canceled. App. Br. 23. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Silicon Laboratories Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to controllers for capacitive touch screens. Spec. 12. According to the Specification, a capacitive touch screen is formed by a grid of rows and columns of conductors in which the rows and columns are separated by a dielectric material. Spec. 13. Possible touch positions are represented by the intersections of the rows and columns. Spec. 13. A touch is identified by detecting “small disturbances in capacitance by the user’s finger touching the surface of the touch screen.” Spec. 13. Further, according to the Specification, interference from other nearby electrical circuits/signals may also affect the detected capacitance and corrupt the touch position determination. Spec. 13. The Specification describes the determination of a baseline capacitance by measuring capacitance at each touch position on the touch screen grid. See Spec. H 36—38. According to the Specification, the baseline capacitance varies according to a scan frequency being used. Spec. 136. At start-up, a survey scan is performed to determine a baseline measurement of interference as the scan frequency varies. Spec. 136. Another type of scan—a panel scan—is used to determine one or more touch locations. Spec. 137. According to the Specification, based on the measured interference levels at different values of operational parameters (e.g., scan frequency), operational parameters (including scan frequency) are selected to perform the panel scan and improve the integrity of the touch measurement. Spec. 138. Claims 10 and 21 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 2 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 10. A controller for a capacitive touch screen, comprising: a touch resolve subsystem that in response to a trigger input measures a plurality of capacitance values defining a touch location on the capacitive touch screen using a plurality of input pins; and a processor that controls said touch resolve subsystem to acquire a frame comprising said plurality of capacitance values, determines a level of interference in said frame, and uses said frame to determine a touch location unless said level of interference is greater than a first threshold. 21. A method for acquiring information from a capacitive touch screen comprising: for each of a plurality of values of a parameter: performing a first scan of the capacitive touch screen using a value of a parameter; performing a second scan of the capacitive touch screen using said value of said parameter; determining an interference at said value of said parameter based on a difference between said second scan and said first scan; and adding said interference to an interference map at said value of said parameter wherein said interference map identifies an interference at each of said plurality of values of said parameter, and said values vary over an allowed range, selecting a desired value of said parameter based on said interference map; scanning said capacitive touch screen using said desired value of said parameter; and determining a touch location in response to said scanning. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Olson (US 2012/0043970 Al; Feb. 23, 2012). Final Act. 3—5. 3 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 2. Claims 1—9 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olson and Curtis et al. (US 2011/0007028 Al; Jan. 13, 2011) (“Curtis”). Final Act. 6-10. 3. Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curtis and Schwartz et al. (US 2012/0229415 Al; Sept. 13, 2012) (“Schwartz”). Final Act. 10-13. Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Olson discloses adding an interference level to an interference map for a plurality of values of a parameter “over an allowed range [of values for the parameter],” as recited in claim 21, and as similarly recited in claim l?2 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis and Schwartz teaches or suggests determining a level of interference in a frame comprising a plurality of capacitance values, as required by claim 10? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Curtis and Schwartz teaches or suggests using a level of interference in a frame “to update said baseline capacitance if said level of interference is less than a second threshold,” as recited in claim 13? 2 We only address this issue which is dispositive of claims 1—9 and 21—24. We do not address additional issues related to these claims raised by Appellants’ argument. 4 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 ANALYSIS3 Claims 21—24 Appellants assert Olson, as relied upon by the Examiner, fails to disclose adding interference values to an interference map for a plurality of parameter values “wherein said [parameter] values vary over an allowed range,” as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants argue Olson discloses adjusting ScanDRivE parameters until a Scan Output is within the WindowRANGi. App. Br. 7—9 (citing Olson, Fig. 6). Appellants contend the WindowRANGE of Olson relates to the Scan Output variable and is not a range on the ScanDRivE parameters. App. Br. 8. In response, the Examiner explains that “[a] broadest reasonable interpretation of an ‘allowed range’ would include the limits from zero to infinity.” Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Olson discloses the ScanDRivE parameters are adjusted until the Scan Output is within the WindowRANGE- Ans. 2. Thus, the Examiner finds Olson changes the ScanDRivE parameters over an allowed range (i.e., zero to infinity) and picks a desired value of ScanDRivE parameters. Ans. 3. Appellants further argue the Examiner’s proposed construction of an “allowed range” is overly broad and inconsistent with the Specification. Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellants assert a range is “a sequence, series, or scale between limits” and the Examiner’s limitless quantity (i.e., infinity) does not define a range. Reply Br. 2. Additionally, Appellants contend such 3 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed December 18, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed June 24, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on April 24, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on July 22, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken. 5 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 a construction is inconsistent with the Specification which describes determining an interference map by evaluating the interference over an infinite range, which would take an infinite amount of time. Reply Br. 2. Further, Appellants argue “Olson does not determine an interference map over [a] range [, but rather] finds the first acceptable level of interffame interference and quits.” Reply Br. 3. When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although the claim language does not require varying the parameter an entire allowed range (e.g., zero to infinity, using the Examiner’s proposed construction), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s proposed construction of an allowed range being from zero to infinity is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the Specification. Further, Olson discloses adjusting ScanDRivE parameters until a measured noise value (i.e., Scan Output) is within a WindowRANGi. Figure 6 of Olson is illustrative and is reproduced below. 6 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 Start ................*.......... Scar\,a.,Parameters ~ ; Default Scan Sensor K 825 "OU1 ■610 620 feO'O Scan Ouput'''•■; - #(fi Wtndowft^fgf.^-- Ho 821 635 jv'ss ..■--"Scan Output: T" WO Save Scan^p \ i Parameters ! to Memory 678 ! ................. *’.... ""....5 1 84 i) Redueg Scan^ | toease ScanfiHV, j Parameters Parameters j ......._ ..... * 650 ■ .J Scan Sensor ...! i Scan Sensor .1 ■■......■......]................... seo 655 ’ Scan Oupot No Soars Ouput No Win(kwf;wcs7-.---' {Yes .... ........ Aes 685 / Save ScanDRW /" Save Scan,w. \ B-Sl - ' -...2 Parameters ■ l Parameters i to Memory to Memory SSI FIGURE 8 Figure 6 of Olson illustrates a flowchart for automatically setting range parameters in a capacitive sensing system. Olson 113. As shown, ScanDRivE parameters are reduced or increased (items 640 and 670) when the Scan Output is outside of the WindowRANGE (items 635, 655, and 685). If the Scan Output is within the WindowRANGE, the parameters are saved and the process stops (items 655, 685, 651, and 681). Beyond the Examiner’s finding of an “allowed range” for the ScanDRivE parameters being from zero 7 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 to infinity, which we find unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the Specification, the Examiner has not identified with sufficient evidence that Olson discloses adjusting the ScanDRivE parameters over an allowed range for the ScanDRivE parameters. For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 22—24, which depend therefrom. Claims 1—9 Claim 1 is directed to a controller for a capacitive touch screen and recites, in relevant part, “determin[ing] an interference map for each of a plurality of values of a parameter, wherein said interference map identifies an interference at each of said plurality of values of said parameter, and said values vary over an allowed range.” Similar to claim 21, Appellants rely on the argument that Olson doesn’t teach determining an interference map for a plurality of parameter values over an allowed range. App. Br. 13. The Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence or technical reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use or adjust the ScanDRivE parameters of Olson to values within the capabilities and allowances for those parameters. Instead, the Examiner relies on the reasoning provided in support of the rejection of claim 21. Ans. 5. 8 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 For the reasons discussed supra and on the record before us, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim l.4 Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—9, which depend therefrom. Claims 10—15 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Schwartz teaches “determin[ing] a level of interference in said frame, and uses said frame to determine a touch location unless said level of interference is greater than a first threshold,” as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 18—19. Appellants concede Schwartz teaches discarding capacitive measurements for noisy signals (i.e., the level of interference is greater than a first threshold), but assert Schwartz “describes measuring a level of interference of individual elements, but does not contemplate determining a composite interference of a whole frame.” App. Br. 18—19. Further, although Appellants acknowledge Schwartz discloses a two-dimensional array of sensors, Appellants contend Schwartz is directed to a one dimensional array. App. Br. 18—19 (citing Schwartz || 32, 42-43). Additionally, Appellants assert the Examiner has failed to articulate a reasoning in support of the proposed combination of Curtis and Schwartz. App. Br. 19. Appellants’ arguments do not apprise of Examiner error. As Appellants acknowledge, Schwartz teaches the determination of “two- 4 While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 9 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 dimensional position information.” Schwartz 142; App. Br. 18—19. Further, the Examiner finds Schwartz’s teaching of measuring interference in every cycle teaches or suggests the claimed “determin[ing] a level of interference in said frame.” Ans. 7 (citing Schwartz || 61—66, Fig. 2). Appellants do not persuasively rebut these findings or explanation of the Examiner. Additionally, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficiently to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Specifically, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Curtis’ teaching of discarding measurements when the interference is greater than a threshold value (i.e., noisy signals) to Schwartz’s measurement at a frame level “in order to improve the efficiency in detecting touches in the presence of interferences.” Final Act. 11. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 19. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. App. Br. 19. In particular, Appellants assert although “Schwartz discloses a range of possibilities for combining the capacitive measurements, he does not disclose the manner of using them recited in claim 13, namely using them to update the baseline capacitance if the level of interference is less than a second threshold.” App. Br. 19. In response, the Examiner finds claim 13 is obvious over the combined teachings of Schwartz and Curtis. Ans. 8. Specifically, the 10 Appeal 2015-006560 Application 13/342,673 Examiner explains Curtis teaches updating the baseline measurements and Schwartz is relied upon for teaching comparing measured values to a second threshold, as needed. Ans. 8. The Examiner further explains the introduction of a second threshold in updating the baseline capacitance would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 8. Appellants’ reply does not respond to the Examiner’s explanation in the Answer. See Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9 and 21—24. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10—15. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation