Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

11512042 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111512,042 08/28/2006
60909 7590 09/30/2016
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
198 CHAMPION COURT
SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709
MarkR. Lee
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
CD06098 1531
EXAMINER
SHAPIRO, LEONID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
patents@cypress.com
pbj@cypress.com
pbjtmp2@cypress.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK R. LEE, CHRISTOPHER M. HAMMER, and
DENNIS R. SEGUINE
Appeal2015-002351
Application 11/512,042
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002351
Application 11/512,042
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a temperature compensation method
for capacitive sensors. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a touch-sensing device, comprising:
detecting an environmental factor that has an effect on the
touch-sensing device using a touch sensor that is unresponsive to
a presence of a conductive object during the detecting of the
environmental factor;
detecting the presence of the conductive object; and
compensating, during the operating of the touch-sensing
device, for the effect of the environmental factor on the detecting
of the presence of the conductive object.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12-14, and 17-18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Brown (US 2006/0114247 Al; June 1,
2006).
Claims 3, 6, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Brown and Englemann et al. (US
6,723,937 B2; Apr. 20, 2004).
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Brown, Engelmann et al., and
Stessman et al. (US 2005/0275382 Al; Dec. 15, 2005).
ANALYSIS
This appeal turns on whether Brown's disclosure of measuring
various effects is limited to the time of manufacturing a touch-sensing
device, as Appellants argue, rather than "during the operating of the touch-
2
Appeal2015-002351
Application 11/512,042
sensing device,"2 as claim 1 recites. We have considered Appellants'
arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, to
the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following
explanation for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Brown's
reference capacitor CR is used to detect an environmental effect because "the
capacitance Cref of the capacitor CR is chosen during the device
manufacturing by taking into consideration the various effects" identified in
paragraph 67 of Brown. App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue that an artisan
of ordinary skill would have understood Brown's disclosure that the
"minimum expected capacitance should take into account process variations
during manufacture, mismatching, temperature effects, and any other effects
on the minimum capacitance which could be presented for measurement" to
mean effects presented for measurement at the time of manufacturing. Id. at
9.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds Brown discloses minimum expected capacitance should take
into account "temperature effects," and any other effects on the minimum
capacitance which could be present for measurement. Ans. 3 (citing Brown
i-f 67); Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds Brown discloses that the
2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether the recited limitation "during the operating of the touch-
sensitive device," recited in claim 1, complies with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claims 9 and 18 recite
similar limitations.
3
Appeal2015-002351
Application 11/512,042
apparatus 20 forms part of an active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD)
and is used determine changes in pixel capacitance to provide a "touch
screen." Ans. 3 (citing Brown i-f 67). The Examiner explains that "[t]he
changes in pixel capacitance only could be done during operating of the
touch-sensitive device versus calibration." Id. at 3--4 (citing Brown i-f 19).
The plain language of paragraph 67 does not limit "temperature
effects" to those present at the time of manufacture, and Appellants have not
explained why the preceding sentences would have caused an artisan of
ordinary skill to interpret paragraph 67 as so limited. See App. Br. 9.
Because Appellants do not present sufficient persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Brown discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 8 and 19, which recite similar language and for which
Appellants present no additional arguments. See App. Br. 5---6. We also
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 15,
and 16, for which Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments made for the
independent claims. Id. at 10-11.
4
Appeal2015-002351
Application 11/512,042
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-18.
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
5