Ex Parte Ludden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12770415 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121770,415 04/29/2010
65214 7590 08/29/2016
SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher A. Ludden
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.
SYNA-20090423-DlA 9679
EXAMINER
GE, JIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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@wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. LUDDEN, THOMAS A. MACKIN,
SHAWN P. DAY, and DAVID W. GILLESPIE
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1--42 and 6-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Synaptics,
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 5. Ans. 2.
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to displaying images on touch sensitive
screens. See Abstract. Appellants' invention seeks to alleviate the
processing burdens on host processors that are charged to handle both the
touch screen functionality (e.g., display and touch sensors) along with other
integrated functions provided by these electronic devices. Spec. i-fi-1 3-5.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An electronic device comprising:
a display screen configured for displaying images;
a touch sensor having a sensing region, wherein said
sensing region overlaps with an active area of said display
screen;
a host processing system configured for primary
processing of said images for display on said display screen; and
a touch screen control system comprising:
touch sensor control circuitry configured to operate
said touch sensor to detect user input in said sensing
region; and
display control circuitry configured to operate said
display screen, said display circuitry comprising:
a first memory configured to hold a primary
image provided by said host processing system;
a second memory configured to hold a
secondary image; and
display refresh circuitry configured to:
update said display screen with ones of
said images processed by said host
processing system, and
in response to said user input and
without requiring intervention by said host
processing system: generate a blended image
comprising said primary image and said
2
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
secondary image, and upaate said display
screen with said blended image.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1, 3, 8-12, 14, 15, 17-24, and 27-29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shetter (US 2003/0197687
Al, publ. Oct. 23, 2003) and Lee (US 2005/0099400 Al, publ. May 12,
2005).
2. Claims 2, 13, 16, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Shetter, Lee, and Christie (US 2008/0165140
Al, publ. July 10, 2008).
3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shetter, Lee, and Hwang (US 2010/0122195 Al, publ.
May 13, 2010).
4. Claims 6 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shetter, Lee, and Stedman (US 2010/0115303 Al, publ.
May 6, 2010).
5. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shetter, Lee, and Kawamoto (US 2007 /0177801 Al, publ.
Aug. 2, 2007).
6. Claims 7 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shetter, Lee, and Kothari (US 2006/0066601 Al, publ.
Mar. 30, 2006).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of
claim 5 over Shetter, Lee, and Christie, and of claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 over
the combination of Lee and Kwong (US 2008/0055256 Al, publ. Mar. 6,
2008) and the combination of Lee and Gough (US 5,638,501, iss. June 10,
1997). Ans. 2-3.
3
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken; and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following.
I. Claims 1 and 3
Appellants argue claims 1 and 3 together, directing their arguments to
claim 1. See App. Br. 8-13. Accordingly, we take claim 1 as representative
and direct our analysis to claim 1. Cf, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(representative claims).
Appellants argue "Shetter does not teach the computing system 100
that includes 'a host processing system configured for primary processing of
said images for display on said display screen,' as claimed in Claim 1
(emphasis added)." App. Br. 9. Instead, Appellants argue,
Shetter discloses "The portable monitor has its own
processor 142 and an operating system 140 for managing and
supporting the various hardware and software components
located on the portable device" (col. 4, lines 29-30), and "The
display and operation of the virtual keyboard is controlled by a
virtual keyboard controller 152, which may also be a part of the
operating system 140" (col. 4, lines 62-64, emphasis added).
App. Br. 10. Thus, Appellants conclude, Shetter discloses that the "portable
monitor ... performs the primary processing of images for display on the
display screen" not the computing system 100. Id.
4
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
that the portable monitor displays two images: (1) a background image and
(2) an image of a virtual keyboard. Ans. 3--4. According to the Examiner
the background image "may be generated by an application" that is running
on the host computer 100. Id. (citing Fig. 4; Shetter i-f 29) ("The background
image may be a user interface window of an application that the user is
running on the computer 100"). Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or reasoning rebutting the Examiner's findings. In particular,
Appellants' argument that displaying the virtual keyboard is controlled by
the portable monitor itself (rather than the host computer) through the virtual
keyboard controller does not address the Examiner's findings directed to the
background image being displayed by the host computer. Further,
Appellants' argument that "the 'virtual keyboard' is also referred to as the
'background image"' (Reply Br. 6) is contradicted by paragraph 29 of
Shetter which makes a distinction between the virtual keyboard and the
background image. See Shetter i-f 29 (explaining that "the keyboard image of
the virtual keyboard is a semi-transparent image superimposed on or blended
with a second image that is hereinafter referred to as the background
image").
Appellants argue "Lee does not overcome the deficiencies of Shetter
because the combination of Shetter and Lee changes the principle of
operation of Shetter ... [being] that the portable monitor (and not computing
system 100) is configured for the primary processing of images." App. Br.
10. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because it fails to address the
Examiner's rejection. The Examiner does not rely upon Lee to teach that the
host processing system be configured for primary processing of images.
5
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
Rather, the Examiner relies upon Lee to teach a first memory configured to
hold a primary image and a second memory configured to hold a secondary
image. Ans. 5. Thus, even if it is assumed, arguendo, Appellants are
correct that Shetter's principle of operation is that the primary processing of
images is handled by the portable monitor, the Examiner's combination of
Lee with Shetter does not change this principle of operation.
Appellants argue "Lee, as a whole, teaches away from 'in response to
said user input and without requiring intervention by said host processing
system: generate a blended image comprising said primary image and said
secondary image, and update said display screen with said blended image,'
as claimed (emphasis added)." App. Br. 12. This is because, according to
Appellants, "all the steps of the 'display update process,' ... are controlled
by CPU 508" (App. Br. 11 ), and therefore, intervention by the host
processing system is required. Again, we are unpersuaded by Appellants'
argument. First, the Examiner is relying upon Shetter, not Lee, to teach or
suggest that a blended image is generated without intervention by the host
processing system. Ans. 6 (citing Shetter i-fi-1 29, 3 6). Second, arguing that
in Lee, a host processing system is needed to help respond to user input, is
not sufficient to teach away from the limitation. Instead, the argument
shows little more than Lee does not teach the limitation, rather than showing
that Lee teaches away from the limitation by, for example, suggesting that
the line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely
to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. See In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of
claim 3, which was argued together with claim 1. See App. Br. 10-13.
6
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
IL Claim 4
Appellants argue "Appellants do not understand assigning priorities to
data items by a controller to teach 'wherein said host processing system is
further configured to provide one of a plurality of images as said secondary
image based on an application running on said host processing system
having priority,' as claimed." App. Br. 32.
We disagree. Hwang teaches that certain data items can be prioritized
in a graphical list based on the application to which they pertain. Hwang
i-f 167. We agree with the Examiner that Hwang, therefore, teaches
prioritizing images related to certain applications. As discussed above with
respect to claim 1, Shetter teaches that the host processing system can
provide images based on applications running on the host processing system.
See Shetter i-f 29. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Hwang and Shetter teach "wherein said host processing system is further
configured to provide one of a plurality of images as said secondary image
based on an application running on said host processing system having
priority," as recited in claim 4.
III. Claims 2 and 6-32
Appellants do no present any additional arguments for claims 2 and
6-32, and in many cases, simply reiterate, near verbatim, the arguments for
made for claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of
claims 2 and 6-3 2.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-32 are affirmed.
7
Appeal2015-002479
Application 12/77 0,415
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8