Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2018

14078982 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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.
2013-0062 4699
EXAMINER
CHOW, WING H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/078,982 11/13/2013 Kevin Li
83658 7590 01/22/2018
AT & T Legal Department - CS&G
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-212
One AT & T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
01/22/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN LI
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal relates to “Gesture
Detection.” App. Br. 1, Title.
1 We refer herein to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Aug. 1,
2016; the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed Dec. 5, 2016; the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”), mailed Mar. 7, 2017; and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”),
filed May 1, 2017.
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of output signals generated by a
three-dimensional curvilinear capacitive sensor during
performance of a contactless gesture with a user's hand, the
three-dimensional curvilinear capacitive sensor comprising
a plurality of curvilinearly arranged plates for the
generation of an electric field by the curvilinearly arranged
plates during the performance of the contactless gesture,
such that the electric field generated is perpendicular to each
curvilinearly arranged plate, wherein adjacent ones of the
plurality of the curvilinearly arranged plates have a
different orientation as to each other, and the output signals
being indicative of a capacitance between the three-
dimensional curvilinear capacitive sensor and the user's hand;
retrieving one command of a plurality of different
commands, the one command retrieved being associated with
the plurality of output signals; and
executing, by a processor, the one command retrieved in
response to the performance of the contactless gesture.
(Dispositive “receiving” step emphasized in bold and italics).
Rejections 2
Rl. Claims 1—4, 6—11, 13—18 and 20 are rejected under AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Heim et al. (US
2014/0050354 Al, publ. Feb. 20, 2014) (hereinafter “Heim”), Bateman et al.
(US 2014/0160027 Al, publ. June 12, 2014) (hereinafter “Bateman”), and
AN3863.pdf, Freescale Semiconductor, Designing Touch Sensing
2 The Examiner indicates: “The present application, filed on or after March
16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the
AIA.” (Final Act. 2).
2
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
Electrodes, July 2011,
https://cache.freescale.com/files/sensors/doc/app_note/AN3863.pdf.
(hereinafter “Freescale”). (Final Act. 4).
R2. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Heim, Bateman, Freescale, and Tak
(US 2003/0109972 Al, publ. June 12, 2003. (Final Act. 13).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding
the cited Heim, Bateman, and Freescale references collectively teach or
suggest the contested limitation:
the three-dimensional curvilinear capacitive sensor comprising a
plurality of curvilinearly arranged plates for the generation of an
electric field by the curvilinearly arranged plates during the
performance of the contactless gesture, such that the electric field
generated is perpendicular to each curvilinearly arranged plate,
wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of the curvilinearly
arranged plates have a different orientation as to each other\,]
within the meaning of independent claim l?3 (emphasis added).
In reaching this decision, we consider all the evidence presented and
all arguments actually made by Appellant. We focus our analysis on the
contested language: “wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of the
curvilinearly arranged plates have a different orientation as to each other.”
(App. Br. 6, Claims App’x, Claim 1 (emphasis added)).
3 We give the contested claim limitation the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
Appellant contests the recited limitation “wherein adjacent ones of the
plurality of the curvilinearly arranged plates have a different orientation as
to each other,” in both the Appeal Brief (7), and the Reply Brief (2—8),
urging that the cited sections of the Heim and Bateman references do not
teach or suggest these elements of method claim 1. Independent claims 8
and 15 each recite the identical limitation having commensurate scope.
(Claims App’x).
Appellant contends, inter alia:
Nothing in Heim teaches or suggests that the electrodes 104a,
104b, 104c, and/or 104d which necessarily form Heim's sensory
system (see, e.g., Heim, para. [0034] and FIG. 1) are, or can be,
oriented differently one to the other.... Further, any comparison
between Heim and the claimed electrodes must focus on Heim's
electrode configuration sitting beneath the keys - not the keys
themselves. The Examiner's rejection as set forth in the Final
Office Action dated August 8, 2016 ("Final Office Action") is
flawed in at least this respect. Heim's Figure 2, for example,
clearly shows electrodes that are all orientated in a common way
and configuration (i.e., a single plane) beneath his keys.
(App. Br. 8) (emphasis added).
Appellant emphasizes: “any comparison between Heim and the
claimed electrodes must focus on Heim's electrode configuration sitting
beneath the keys — not the keys themselves.” (Reply Br. 4).
Appellant further contends:
Bateman teaches that the electric field generated by the
transmitter electrode is received by one or more receiver
electrodes that are aligned with the transmitter electrode. Again,
4
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
nothing in Bateman stands for a teaching or suggestion of the
above-detailed aspects of the claimed embodiments including
but not limited to “wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of the
curvilinearly arranged plates have a different orientation as to
each other”. This is further highlighted by Bateman's FIGs. 1-
3 that clearly show electrodes (whether transmitter or receiver in
his teachings) that are uniformly configured one to the other (as
each electrode set is shown in their own respective singular
plane) which are in stark contrast to Appellant's claimed
embodiments as shown in Appellant's FIGs. 12 and 13, for
example.
(Reply Br. 6) (emphasis added).
In rejecting claim 1 under § 103, the Examiner finds Heim’s keyboard
(Fig. 1), with several rows of keys, teaches: “wherein adjacent ones of the
plurality of the curvilinearly arranged keys \cf with “plates” as claimed)]
have a different orientation as to each other.” (Final Act. 6) (emphasis
added). The Examiner, however, finds “Heim does not appear[] to explicitly
teach the flexible printed circuit board and the sensor electrodes positioned
underneath the keys are curvilinearly arranged with the keys.” (Final Act. 7).
To support the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds curvilinear
capacitive sensors with curvilinearly arranged plates are taught by the
proffered combination of Heim’s keyboard (Fig. 1), as modified by the
teachings of Bateman (Fig. 6). (Final Act. 8). The Examiner (id.) points to
Bateman, Figure 6, depicting electrode 10, a flexible printed circuit board,
and the associated description in paragraphs 27—29 of Bateman.
However, we find the Examiner has not fully developed the record to
show that Heim’s keyboard (Fig. 1), as modified by Bateman (Fig. 6, Tflf 27—
29), teaches or suggests the claimed plurality of “curvilinear arranged plates
5
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
having a different orientation as to each another,” as required by the
contested language of claim 1. (emphasis added).
As recently emphasized by our reviewing court in Smith:
Even when giving claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation, the Board cannot construe the claims “so broadly
that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim
construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he protocol of giving
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not
include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation”
“divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Id.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see PPC
Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns Rb\ LLC, 815
F.3d 747, 751-53 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not
simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also
In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382—83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Applying our reviewing court’s guidance here, we broadly but
reasonably interpret the disputed claim language in a manner consistent with
Appellant’s Specification. See e.g., Spec. 122 and Figures 12 and 13:
The convex, curvilinear arrangement of the plates 90
increases sensitivity of the gesture detector 24 to the gesture
28. As the user's hand 26 performs the contactless gesture 28, the
6
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
electric field E (illustrated as reference numeral 100) is
everywhere perpendicular to each plate 90. As the multiple
plates 90 may be curvilinearly arranged, each different plate
90 produces a different output signal 32. The different output
signals 32 thus allow exemplary embodiments to detect
proximity to the user’s hand 26 using many different vector
representations of many different electric fields E. Conventional
two-dimensional planar arrangements yield an identical vector
representation, providing little data for differentiating the user's
different gestures 28. The curvilinear, three-dimensional
arrangement, in contradistinction, generates many different
output signals 32, albeit normal to each plate 90, that
provides much more data.
(emphasis added).
Given this context {id.), we are of the view that the Examiner’s claim
interpretation of “the plurality of the curvilinearly arranged plates hav[ing] a
different orientation as to each other,” as recited in each independent claim
on appeal, is overly broad, unreasonable, and inconsistent with the
Specification, (emphasis added). See Spec. Figs. 12—13,122.
After reviewing the evidence cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4—9),
we do not find the Examiner has identified in the combination of Heim and
Bateman (and Freescale) a teaching or suggestion of “the three-dimensional
curvilinear capacitive sensor comprising a plurality of curvilinearly arranged
plates for the generation of an electric field by the curvilinearly arranged
plates during the performance of the contactless gesture, such that the
electric field generated is perpendicular to each curvilinearly arranged plate,
wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of the curvilinearly arranged plates
have a different orientation as to each other f as required by the
7
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
commensurate language of each independent claim on appeal, (emphasis
added).
Thus, we find the contested limitation is not reasonably taught or
suggested by the curvilinear keys as shown on Heim’s keyboard (Fig. 1),
considered in combination with Bateman (Fig. 6), and Freescale, without
more. Therefore, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant’s contention the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6).
Because Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred, we reverse
Rejection R1 under § 103 of method claim 1. For the same reasons, we also
reverse rejection R1 of independent apparatus claim 8, and independent
“non-transitory computer-readable medium” claim 15, which each
identically recite the contested limitation.
Because we have reversed Rejection R1 of each independent claim on
appeal, we also reverse rejection R1 of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13,
14, 16-18, and 20.
Regarding the remaining dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, rejected
under § 103 Rejection R2, the Examiner has cited one additional reference
Tak, in addition to the same three references cited as evidence in support of
Rejection R1. On this record, we find the Examiner has not shown how Tak
overcomes the deficiencies of the Heim, Bateman and Freestyle references,
as discussed above regarding Rejection R1 of independent claims 1, 8, and
15. Therefore, we are constrained on this record to also reverse § 103
Rejection R2 of dependent claims 5, 12 and 19.
8
Appeal 2017-007892
Application 14/078,982
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
9