Ex Parte Ludden et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 201612770415 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Br. 1. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 5.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation