Ex Parte Loh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2014

10917402 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WENG WAH LOH, HELEN BALINSKY,
and
FRASER JOHN DICKIN
____________

Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16-20, 22-30, 33, and 35-44. Claims 6, 8-
10, 15, 21, 31, 32, and 34 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claims
1. A touch screen device, comprising:
a sensor array having a plurality of detector elements;
and
a set of output lines coupled to the plurality of detector
elements according to a connection pattern arranged such that
the number of detector elements is greater than the number of
output lines, and that in use triggering any window subset of the
detector elements provides a unique output on the set of output
lines, wherein each window subset has a length falling in a
predetermined variable length range,
wherein each output line is represented by a unique
numeric value, such that each window subset is represented by
a combined numeric total obtained by summing numeric values
for each triggered output line,
wherein each of the plurality of detector elements is
coupled to only one output line of the set of output lines, and
wherein the unique output correlates to an absolute
position of an object in relation to the touch screen device.

36. A search process for use in determining a connection
pattern between a plurality of detector elements and a set of
output lines, the search process comprising:
defining a desired length of the connection pattern L
according to a total number of the detector elements, and
Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402

3
defining a window range of between n and m consecutive
detector elements for unique position determination;
allocating to each output line one element in a reference
alphabet, where the reference alphabet is a sequence of binary
power terms;
selecting an initial string comprising a first m+ 1
elements from the reference alphabet;
calculating a numeric value for each window subset of
length n to m along the string as a search list;
searching the search list for repeated numeric values, and
if so then returning to the selecting step to reselect the string by
replacing or reordering one or more elements, or else adding an
additional element to the string and returning to the calculating
step; and
continuing the search until a connection pattern of the
desired length L is achieved.

Prior Art
Lapeyre US 4,891,777 Jan. 2, 1990
Westerman US 6,323,846 B1 Nov. 27, 2001
Levy US 7,391,861 B2 June 24, 2008
(filed May 22, 2001)

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-13, 16-20, 22-30, 33, and 35-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lapeyre and Levy.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lapeyre, Levy, and Westerman.

Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402

4
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16-20, 22-30, 33, 35,
and 40-44
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of detector elements is coupled
to only one output line of the set of output lines.” Appellants contend
Lapeyre teaches connecting a keyboard in a computer system via an
orthogonal grid connection matrix, but does not teach coupling each detector
element to only one output line. App. Br. 18-19. In particular, Appellants
contend the decoder of Lapeyre reads the actuation of a pair of output lines
associated with a particular detector. Id. Appellants also contend Levy fails
to remedy the deficiencies of Lapeyre. App. Br. 19. In particular,
Appellants contend Levy teaches an orthogonal grid system much like
Lapeyre. App. Br. 19-20. The Examiner finds column 15, lines 1-43 of
Levy teaches each detector element coupled to only one output line. Ans. 6.
The Examiner further finds, in Figure 5 of Lapeyre, one to one
correspondence is achieved based on the key design of Levy, rather than
matrix based, to individually address each node. Ans. 23.
We agree with Appellants. The cited portion of Levy (col. 15, ll. 1-
43; Figs. 2, 3) shows switch grid pads 18 located at each junction of arrays
23 and 25. The elements of a switch grid pad 18 include a first element 19
of array 23, and a second element 21 of array 25. Thus, each switch grid pad
18, or “detector element,” is connected to a first element, or “output line” 19,
and to a second output line 21. The Examiner has failed to persuasively
explain how Levy teaches each detector element coupled to only one output
line. Given that neither Lapeyre nor Levy teaches “each of the plurality of
detector elements is coupled to only one output line of the set of output
Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402

5
lines,” we find the combination of Lapeyre and Levy does not teach this
claimed limitation, as recited in claim 1.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Independent claims 16, 19, 25-27, 29, and 33, and corresponding
dependent claims, contain a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for
which the rejection fails. Appellants do not present arguments for separate
patentability of claim 14, which falls with claim 1. Thus, we also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 11-14, 16-20, 22-30, 33, 35, and 40-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 36-39
Appellants contend the combination of Lapeyre and Levy does not
teach a process of determining a connection pattern as required by claim 36.
App. Br. 23-24. The Examiner finds Figure 5 of Lapeyre and Figures 17 and
23, and column 15 lines 25-55 of Levy teach determining the connection
pattern as required by claim 36. Figure 5 of Lapeyre shows a block diagram
of a keyboard input for a processing system. See col. 5, ll. 9-12. Figure 17
of Levy shows a view of a keypad cover. See col. 12, ll. 60-63. Figure 23 of
Levy shows a telephone circuit. See col. 13, ll. 7-8. The cited portion of
column 15 of Levy discusses Figures 2-4. The Examiner has not
persuasively explained how the cited portions of Lapeyre and Levy teach the
steps for the method recited in claim 36.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 36 and
corresponding dependent claims 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2011-013291
Application 10/917,402

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 11-13, 16-20, 22-30, 33, and 35-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lapeyre and Levy is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lapeyre, Levy, and Westerman is reversed.

REVERSED

msc