Ex Parte Marino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12575860 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/575,860 10/08/2009
32692 7590 03/02/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rachael P. MARINO
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.
65768US002 1870
EXAMINER
LEE, NICHOLAS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RACHAEL P. MARINO and RICHARD A. PETERSON JR
Appeal2014-002548
Application 12/575,860
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JON M. JURGOV AN and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a touch sensitive device having a touch
panel, drive unit and measurement unit wherein the "measurement unit
receives a first response signal from a sense electrode, and analyzes the
signal using maximum likelihood estimation to determine the coupling
capacitance between the first drive electrode and the sense electrode, and
Appeal2014-002548
Application 12/575,860
between the second drive electrode and the sense electrode." Abstract.
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A touch-sensitive apparatus, comprising:
a panel comprising a touch surface, a plurality of drive
electrodes, and a plurality of receive electrodes;
a drive unit configured to deliver a first drive signal having a
first drive frequency to a first one of the drive electrodes while
also delivering a second drive signal having a second drive
frequency, different from the first drive frequency, to a second
one of the plurality of drive electrodes; and
a measurement unit configured to receive a first response signal
from a first one of the plurality of receive electrodes, and to
analyze the first response signal to determine therefrom (a) a
first coupling capacitance between the first receive electrode
and the first drive electrode using maximum likelihood
estimation and a first frequency associated with the first drive
frequency, and (b) a second coupling capacitance between the
first receive electrode and the second drive electrode using
maximum likelihood estimation and a second frequency
associated 1r'Vith the second drive frequency'.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4 and 6-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotelling (US Patent Application Publication Number
2008/0158167 Al; published July 3, 2008) and Reynolds (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2007/0109274 Al; published May 17,
2007). Answer 3-14.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotelling, Reynolds and Ely (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2001/0006369 Al; published July 5, 2001). Answer
14--16.
2
Appeal2014-002548
Application 12/575,860
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 2, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
December 11, 2013), the Answer (mailed October 11, 2013) and the Final
Rejection (mailed January 4, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the 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, except where
noted.
Appellants argue, "In direct contrast to the Examiner's assertion at
line 23 of the Advisory Action, [Reynolds'] paragraph 0030 explicitly states
that the demodulator 117 (not the controller 102) 'identifies' (or determines
or measures) the electrical effects." Appeal Brief 7. Appellants further
assert that Reynolds' paragraph 0038 discloses that the "comparison of
differences in electrical effects observed between electrodes 112A-D" - is
part of a sentence that is "directed to the later determination of the position
based attribute using the already-identified electrical effects, rather than to
the determination or identification of the electrical effects themselves."
Appeal Brief 7-8. The Examiner finds that Reynolds discloses a
measurement unit that not only consists of the demodulator 117 but also
comprises the controller 102. Answer 5---6. Appellants argue, "[T]he
3
Appeal2014-002548
Application 12/575,860
asserted maximum likelihood estimation of paragraph 0038 is used by the
controller 102 to determine position attributes, not by the demodulator 117
to determined capacitive effects." Reply Brief 6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner
equates Reynolds' demodulator 117 and controller 102 as forming the
claimed measurement unit and therefore Appellants' arguments that it is the
demodulator and not the controller that determines electrical effects such as
capacitive effects are not persuasive. Claim 1 does not preclude the
measurement unit consisting of both the controller and demodulator as the
Examiner characterized. Further, Appellants do not argue to the contrary
about the Examiner's characterization. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claim 18 that is
commensurate in scope. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 6-16, 19 and 20 not separately argued.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 17 is erroneous because
Reynolds fail to disclose a teaching or suggestion that shows the
identification of electrical effects is implemented by MLE [maximum
likelihood estimation]. Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds that Reynolds
discloses several options described in paragraph [0038] that could be
considered to employ maximum likelihood estimation. 1 Answer 6. We do
not find Appellants' argument persuasive because the claims do not define or
1 "Alternatively, a weighted average of the electrical effects observed from
some or all of the modulated electrodes 112A-D can be computed, with this
weighted average, or centroid, correlating to the position of object 121."
Reynolds, paragraph 38.
4
Appeal2014-002548
Application 12/575,860
limit the estimation to a specific process or likelihood function. 2 Therefore
we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 17.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 5 was erroneous because
Ely does not make up for the deficiencies of the Hotelling and Reynolds
combination. Appeal Brief 9. We do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive because we do not find the Hotelling/Reynolds combination
deficient. Therefore we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 5.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
2 Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take
into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims
limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
5