Ex Parte KRAH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

13244072 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/244,072 09/23/2011
69753 7590 08/18/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Christoph Horst KRAH
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.
106842046600
(Pl2559US1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
3801
EXAMINER
YANG, NAN-YING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2016 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 CHRISTOPH HORST KRAH, KEVIN J. WHITE, and YAFEI BI
Appeal2015-000339 1
Application 13/244,072
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
managing power in integrated touch screens. In particular, during a display
phase, a power supply is operated by applying voltages to conductive lines
of the touch screen to update an image displayed thereon. However, during
a touch sensing phase, the power supply applies voltages to the conducting
lines only during inactive touch sensing periods (gap periods) when no
sensing is being performed to thereby avoid the possibility of corrupting
touch sensing inputs. Spec. i-fi-141-51, Fig. 8.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. An integrated touch screen system comprising:
a touch screen including a plurality of display pixels, the
plurality of display pixels including an addressing system that
includes a plurality of conductive lines;
a display system that updates an image displayed by the
display pixels during a display phase, wherein the updating of
the image includes actively operating a power supply to apply
voltages to the conductive lines to address the display pixels;
and
a touch sensing system that senses touch during a touch
sensing phase, the touch sensing phase including a plurality of
active sensing periods during which the touch sensing system
performs active touch sensing while the power supply is not
actively applying voltages to the conductive lines, the touch
sensing phase further including at least one gap period between
active sensing periods, wherein the power supply is actively
operated to apply voltages to the conductive lines during the at
least one gap period while active touch sensing is not being
performed.
2
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
Inoue
Rast
Krah
Park
Hotelling
Wang
Reynolds
Yang
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2002/0154104 Al
US 2005/0264472 Al
US 2008/0309622 Al
US 2009/0251433 Al
US 2010/0194707 Al
US 2011/0102406 Al
US 2011/0210939 Al
US 2012/0154322 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Oct. 24, 2002
Dec. 1, 2005
Dec. 18, 2008
Oct. 8, 2009
Aug. 5, 2010
May 5, 2011
Sept. 1, 2011
June 21, 2012
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling and Yang.
Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, and Wang.
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, and Krah.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, Wang, and Inoue.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, Wang, and Rast.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, Wang, and Park.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, Wang, Park, and
Inoue.
Claims 11, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, and Reynolds.
3
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Yang, Wang, Park, and
Reynolds.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3-11. 2
First, Appellants argue that the combination of Hotelling and Yang
does not teach or suggest a power supply actively applying voltages to
conducting lines in a touch screen only during a gap period of a touch
sensing phase, and not during active periods thereof, as required by
independent claim 1. Br. 3-7. In particular, Appellants argue Yang's
disclosure of an angling control signal YVl C, which is in low and high
states during multiple driving pulses Tdp, is concerned with modulating
signal waveforms on gate lines coupled to pixels included in the touch
panels. Id. 5 (citing Yang i-fi-1 5, 19, Fig. 2). According to Appellants,
Yang's disclosure is devoid of any teaching to support the Examiner's
finding that the transitioning of the angling control signal YVl C from a low
state to high state corresponds to a power supply actively and not actively
applying voltages to conductive lines of a touchscreen. Id. at 6. This
argument is not persuasive.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 10, 2014) and the Answer (mailed July
30, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
Yang discloses providing an angling control signal YV 1 C to gate lines
of a touchscreen as a way to change the signal waveforms thereof. Yang
i-f 5. In particular, Yang discloses that YVl C is in a high state (Ta) during a
gap period between the first and second touch periods (Tdp) wherein no
active sensing is being performed. Yang, Fig. 2. Although Appellants
correctly argue that YVl C is an angling control signal for modulating signal
waveforms on gate lines coupled to pixels included in the touch panel, we do
not agree with Appellants that the disclosed signal has nothing to do with a
power supply actively or not actively applying voltages to the conductive
gate lines. Br. 5 (citing Yang i-fi-1 5, 19). The mere fact that the angling
control signal is being supplied to the conductive gate lines for modulation
purposes does not preclude the signal from being a voltage signal provided
by a power supply. One of ordinarily skill in the art would readily
appreciate that the disclosed signal serves the purpose of both modulating
and driving the conductive gate lines. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Yang's disclosure of the angling control signal being
provided to the conductive gate lines of a touchscreen device during a gap
period between active touch signals (Tdp) teaches the disputed limitations.
Ans. 4-5.
Second, Appellants argue that because Yang's angling control signal
is not in a high state during the display phase when the pixels are being
updated, as required by the claim, the disclosed angling control signal cannot
teach the power supply signal for driving the conductive lines of the
touchscreen device in the sensing phase. Br. 7. This argument is not
persuasive because it is tantamount to an individual attack against the cited
references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
5
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
In particular, the Examiner relied upon Hotelling's disclosure of a
power supply that provides a voltage to drive the display pixels during the
display phase. Final Act. 6-7. Further, the Examiner relied upon Yang's
angling control signals to drive the conductive gates during the sensing
phase of the touchscreen device. Id. The Supreme Court instructs that an
obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Consequently, we find the proposed combination of the cited elements of
Hotelling and Yang is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform,
yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Id. at
416. The ordinarily-skilled artisan, being "a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton," would be able to fit the teachings of Hotelling and Yang
together like pieces of a puzzle. Id. at 420-21. Because Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," we
agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been
within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
6
Appeal2015-000339
Application 13/244,072
Because we agree with the Examiner that the cited disclosures of
Hotelling and Yang teach or suggest the disputed limitations, Appellants
have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-21, because Appellants reiterate substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1
above, claims 2-21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
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
7