Ex Parte Osoinach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13787290 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 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.
13/787,290 03/06/2013 BRYCE T. OSOINACH AI20420ZR-US01 8601
23125 7590
NXP USA, Inc.
LAW DEPARTMENT
6501 William Cannon Drive West TX30/OE62
AUSTIN, TX 78735
EXAMINER
LUI, DONNA V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2017 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):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRYCE T. OSOINACH
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,2901
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—16, and 18—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellant identifies Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. as the real party in
interest. (Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Mar. 6, 2013, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Dec. 8, 2015, the Appeal Brief
(“Br.”) filed May 13, 2016, the Supplemental Appeal Brief (“Supp. Br.”)
filed Oct. 3, 2016 submitting only a Claim Appendix listing the correct
claims, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Nov. 17, 2016.
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems and methods for indicating that an
interface is being touched, using a touch sensor coupled to a conductive
structure included in the interface. (Title; Abstract.) The conductive
structure forms at least a portion of an electrode, and the touch sensor is
configured to make a determination of whether or not a variable electrical
characteristic of the electrode has a value that is consistent with the electrode
being touched. (Abstract.)
Claims 1,14, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
an interface that includes a first conductive structure that
forms at least a portion of an electrode that a touch sensor can
sense as having been touched, wherein the first conductive
structure of the interface is configured to be physically coupled
with a second conductive structure of a cable or cord for
conveying electrical signals or electricity, wherein the electrode
comprises the first conductive structure and the second
conductive structure, and the second conductive structure is a
conductive extension structure that forms a portion of the cable
or cord;
the touch sensor, which is electrically coupled to the first
conductive structure, wherein the touch sensor is configured to
make a determination of whether or not a variable electrical
characteristic of the electrode has a value that is consistent with
any portion of the electrode being touched based on electrical
signals received on an electrical connection between the first
conductive structure and the touch sensor; and
an output device, wherein the output device produces a
human-perceptible indicia in response to a determination by the
touch sensor that the variable electrical characteristic has the
value that is consistent with any portion of the electrode being
touched.
2
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
(Supp. Br. 17 (Claims App.).)3
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2013/0249701
Al, published Sept. 26, 2013), and Brock et al. (US 2009/0173533 Al,
published July 9, 2009, “Brock”). (Final Act. 4—10.)
(2) Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, and Sokola et al. (US 2011/0273819 Al,
published Nov. 10, 2011, “Sokola”). (Final Act. 10-13.)
(3) Claims 8, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, Kobayashi (US 2013/0162574 Al,
published June 27, 2013), and Hinckley et al. (US 2005/0275637 Al,
published Dec. 15, 2005, “Hinckley”). (Final Act. 13—18.)
(4) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, and Yoshikawa (US 2013/0234857 Al,
published Sept. 12,2013). (Final Act. 18.)
(5) Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, and Pance et al. (US 2011/0038114 Al,
published Feb. 17, 2011, “Pance”). (Final Act. 19—20.)
(6) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, and Fe-Faucheur (US 2010/0315211 Al,
published Dec. 16, 2010). (Final Act. 20-21.)
3 Although the Claims Appendix starts on the second page in the
Supplemental Appeal Brief, the Supplemental Appeal Brief counts the
Claims Appendix pages starting with page 17.
3
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
(7) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Brock, Pance, and Yoshikawa. (Final Act. 21—
23.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant states that independent claim 1 recites ‘“the touch sensor
. . . is electrically coupled to the first conductive structure,’ where the ‘first
conductive structure’ is included in the ‘interface,’ and the ‘first conductive
structure . . . forms at least a portion of an electrode’.” (Br. 13.) Appellant
acknowledges Zhang’s sensing device 110 (“a touch button or infrared
sensor”), but contends “Zhang clearly fails to disclose that sensing device
110 is electrically coupled with any portion of connection port 101, let alone
a portion of connection port 101 that may be considered as part of an
electrode.” (Br. 13—14 (citing Zhang Figs. 1A—IB and 2).) Particularly,
Appellant argues Zhang’s connection port 101 does not include a first
conductive structure that forms at least a portion of an electrode, as claim 1
requires. (Br. 14.) Appellant further argues Zhang does not disclose a touch
sensor electrically coupled with any portion of Zhang’s connection port 101
in contrast to Appellant’s claimed “touch sensor, [which] is electrically
coupled to the first conductive structure.” (Br. 14.)
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive as they do not address the
Examiner’s specific findings that Zhang’s sensing device 110 includes a first
conductive structure that forms a portion of an electrode that a touch sensor
can sense as having been touched, as claimed. (Ans. 4—5 (citing Zhang
1122, 24, 26, Fig. 1A).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Particularly, Zhang’s sensing device 110 is touch button or an infrared
4
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
sensor for sensing whether or not the user has touched the connection port
101 via finger.” (See Zhang 120 (emphasis added).) We consider the
skilled artisan, viewing this teaching, would recognize that the touch button
or infrared sensor of Zhang, includes a conductive structure that helps detect
a finger touch.
In addition, Appellant’s Specification broadly describes “a first
conductive structure that forms at least a portion of an electrode” as a
conductive structure whose electrical characteristic(s)—“e.g., capacitance,
inductance, resistance, magnetic field, and so on”—vary when touched.
(See Spec. Tfl[ 16, 22, 34.)4 Thus, the claimed “portion of an electrode that a
touch sensor can sense as having been touched” includes, under the broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification, any conductive
structure that exhibits a variable electrical characteristic when touched. (See
Spec. 11 13, 15—16, 21—22, 26.) We therefore concur with the Examiner that
Zhang teaches and suggests the sensing device 110 includes a first
conductive structure that forms a portion of an electrode that a touch sensor
can sense as having been touched. (Ans. 4—5.) As further recognized by the
Examiner, Zhang also teaches the claimed “interface that includes a first
conductive structure” because “the first conductive structure ([Zhang’s]
4 Appellant’s Specification describes a “volume up button 112 [that] may
include a conductive structure suitable for use as an electrode, and a touch
sensor . . . coupled to the conductive structure may sense a variable
electrical characteristic of the conductive structure (e.g., capacitance,
inductance, resistance, magnetic field, and so on).” (Spec. 116 (emphasis
added); see also Spec. 122.) In one example, a “[s]ensor processor 544 may
. . . evaluate the voltage measurement(s) to determine, for example, whether
a touch event has occurred” by “comparing] the voltage measurement(s)
with a stored baseline voltage for the associated electrode.” (See Spec.
134.)
5
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
sensing device 110 of fig. 1A) is integrated on the housing of the interface
([Zhang’s] connection port 101, fig. 1A).” (Ans. 4 (citing Zhang 126).)
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Zhang fails
to disclose a touch sensor electrically coupled to the first conductive
structure, as recited in claim 1. (Br. 14.) As the Examiner finds, Zhang’s
integrated sensing device includes circuitry integrated with a motherboard to
detect a user’s touch at the sensing device 110, thereby teaching a touch
sensor electrically coupled to the first conductive structure of sensing device
110. (Ans. 5; Final Act. 3 (citing Zhang || 20, 22, Fig. 2).) Zhang’s
integrated sensing device circuitry helps detect touch characteristics (see
Zhang, controller 201, low pin count bus FPC, and general purpose input
output pin GPIOl, 22—24 and Fig. 2), which is commensurate with the
broad description of touch sensor in Appellant’s Specification.5 Thus,
Zhang’s touch sensor (integrated sensing device circuitry) detects a
touch—and thereupon activates an output device (lighting device 102)—
based on electrical signals received on an electrical connection between the
touch sensor and the first conductive structure of sensing device 110, as
required by claim 1.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and, likewise, independent claims 14 and 18 on the same basis as
claim 1 (see Br. 12, 14—15).
5 Appellant’s Specification describes a “touch sensor sub-system 540 [that]
repeatedly performs charging, voltage measurement, and analysis processes
for each of the electrodes. . . . Touch sensor sub-system 540 may be
implemented using one or more integrated circuit chips and/or discreet
components” such as “a multiplexer 542, a sensor processor 544, a current
source 546, and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 548.” (Spec. H 31—32
(emphases added).)
6
Appeal 2017-005842
Application 13/787,290
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10,
12, and 15. (See Br. 15.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to
independent claims 1,14, and 18, we sustain the rejection of these dependent
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20,
Appellant argues that Sokola, Kobayashi, Hinckley, Yoshikawa, Pance, and
Le-Faucheur do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Zhang and Brock. (Br.
16.) Because we find Zhang and Brock are not deficient, Sokola,
Kobayashi, Hinckley, Yoshikawa, Pance, and Le-Faucheur are not needed to
cover any deficiency. Therefore we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 for the reasons stated with respect to
the independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—16, and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
7