Ex Parte Mackey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13428773 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
13/428,773 03/23/2012 Bob Lee Mackey SYNA/l 10018US02 5495
98024 7590 02/23/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LU, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOB LEE MACKEY
Appeal 2016-006808
Application 13/428,773
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006808
Application 13/428,773
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[a]n input device having a plurality of
low-visibility sensor electrodes and method for using the same.” (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An input device comprising:
a display device; and
a plurality of sensor electrodes disposed over the display
device and configured to sense objects in a sensing region of the
input device, wherein the plurality of sensor electrodes comprise
a plurality of spaced apart conductive traces, each conductive
trace having a diameter less than about 10 um, the conductive
traces disposed such that the conductive traces form a moire
pattern with the display device, wherein said moire pattern
comprises a spatial frequency greater than about 10 cycles per
centimeter.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Geaghan et al. (US 2009/0219258 Al; pub. Sept 3, 2009) and Moran et
al. (US 2011/0310037 Al; pub. Dec. 22, 2011). (See Final Act. 2-10.)
1 Appellant identifies Synaptics Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-006808
Application 13/428,773
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—18
Appellant argues that “Moran . . . fails to teach conductive traces that
form a moire pattern with a display device, the moire pattern comprising a
spatial frequency greater than about 10 cycles per centimeter” because (1)
the cited portion of Moran concerns “the spatial frequency ... of a moire
pattern formed due to the overlay of two micropattems, and not of a
micropattem and pixel array” and (2) “Moran . . . fails to teach a desirability
to limit the moire pattern to any particular value.” (App. Br. 9.)
We find Appellant’s first contention unpersuasive because it attacks
the references individually, instead of addressing the combination made by
the Examiner. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The Examiner found that Geaghan teaches a plurality of electrodes
disposed over and forming a moire pattern with a display. (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner further found that although “Geaghan does not specifically
teach wherein said moire pattern comprises a spatial frequency greater than
about 10 cycles per centimeter,” “in the same field of endeavor Moran
teaches wherein said moire pattern comprises a spatial frequency greater
than about 10 cycles per centimeter.” (Final Act. 2—3.) Because the
Examiner finds the electrodes and display in Geaghan, and relies on Moran
only for the claimed spatial frequency, it is of no moment that Moran
discusses the optimal spatial frequency in the context of two micropattems
rather than in the context of a micropattem and a pixel grid.2
2 We do not agree with Appellant that Moran’s teachings are limited to the
spatial frequency between two micropattems. Although Moran primarily
describes minimizing interference between “overlaid micropattems,” it
3
Appeal 2016-006808
Application 13/428,773
We find Appellant’s second argument insufficient to show Examiner
error because it does not rebut the Examiner’s specific findings regarding the
teachings of Moran’s Table 1. (See Final Act. 3; Ans. 12—13.)
As we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, we sustain the Section
103(a) rejection of claims 1—18.
Claims 19 and 20
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Appellant argues that “Geaghen fails to
teach conductive traces oriented relative to plurality of pixels form a moire
pattern with a display device, wherein the moire pattern comprises a pitch in
a direction parallel to the first orientation smaller than the pitch of 3 cycles
of pixels.” (App. Br. 10-11.) That argument is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies on Moran for teachings regarding the pitch. (See Final Act.
9-10.) Appellant further argues that “Moran [] fails to teach a desirability to
limit the moire pattern to any particular value, and thus provides no teaching
to alter any pattern shown in Moran or other reference” and that “[sjince
there is no evidence on record equating pitch geometry between cells and
pixels to pitch geometry of moire pattern . . . [the art] of record does not
suggest a pitch of a moire pattern of traces with a display device that is
smaller than the pitch of 3 cycles of pixels.” (App. Br. 11.) The Examiner
provides additional explanation of how Moran teaches the claimed pitch (see
Ans. 13—14) and Appellant responds only that “the moire pattern of Moran is
between two micropattems of conductive traces, and not between conductive
equates the concerns presented by overlaid micropattems with the concerns
presented by a micropattem laid over a pattern formed by pixels. One of
skill in the art would, therefore, have understood the teachings to also apply
to a micropattem laid over a pattern of pixels.
4
Appeal 2016-006808
Application 13/428,773
traces and display pixels, as claimed” (Reply Br. 3). For the reasons
articulated above, we find this response unpersuasive. As Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s specific findings regarding the pitch,
including those detailed in the Answer, we sustain the rejections of claims
19 and 20.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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