Ex Parte Reise

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

13383269 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/383,269 04/19/2012 Wulf Reise
26294 7590 09/16/2016
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO LLP,
1300EASTNINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
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.
TRW(AEC)021075-US-PCT 6396
EXAMINER
GIRARDI, VANESSA MARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WULF REISE 1
Appeal2015-003756
Application 13/383,269
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellant claims a pushbutton switch having a pressure switching
function to recognize a key actuation and a capacitive sensor function to
recognize a key touch comprising an at least partly electrically conductive
1 TRW Automotive Electronics & Components, GmbH is identified as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003756
Application 13/383,269
key (12) and a printed circuit board (16) having at least one capacitive
sensor surface (20) located opposite to and at a distance from the key, with a
capacitive coupling existing between the key and the sensor surface (sole
independent claim 1, Fig. 1 ).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Murase et al. (US 2008/0257707 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008)
("Murase") and rejects claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Murase in combination with additional prior art.
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Murase, the Examiner finds that
Murase discloses a pushbutton switch having a key (i.e., switch knob) 4A-
4C and a capacitive sensor surface (i.e., land portion) 70A-70C located
opposite to and at a distance from the key as claimed (Final Action 2).
Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding with the following
argument.
[T]he land portions 70A-C are not located opposite the switch
knobs 4A-C. Rather, as can be clearly seen in FIG. 6 of Murase,
the land portions 70A-C are laterally offset from the switch
knobs 4A-C such that the land portions 70A-C are disposed
between two adjacent switch knobs 4A-C. Therefore, the land
portions 70A-C are not located opposite the switch knobs 4A-C
and, therefore, a capacitive coupling does not exist between the
switch knobs 4A-C and the land portions 70A-C.
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner's response to this argument is set forth below.
Re: CLAIM 1 Appellant further argues "the land portions 70A-C are
not located opposite the switch knobs 4A-C."
Examiner's Rebuttal the claim language reads "at least one capacitive
sensor surface located opposite to and at a distance from the key".
Which is interpreted as "offset".
Ans. 4.
2
Appeal2015-003756
Application 13/383,269
Appellant replies that "claim 1 does not say 'offset' ... [but instead]
recites 'at least one capacitive sensor surface located opposite to and at a
distance from the key"' (Reply Br. 3). Appellant argues that "[i]nterpreting
this recitation to mean 'offset' is going beyond the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard ... and is improper" (id.).
Appellant's arguments have convincing merit. The Examiner offers
no Specification disclosure or dictionary definition or any other support for
interpreting the claim 1 recitation under review as encompassing the offset
disposition of Murase's knob/key and land portion/capacitive sensor surface.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 is beyond the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification.
For this reason alone, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims
1-7. Because they do not address the above discussed deficiency of Murase,
we also do not sustain the§ 103 rejections of claims 8 and 9.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
3