Ex Parte Reynolds

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

13034687 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 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.
13/034,687 02/24/2011 Joseph Kurth Reynolds S YNA-20091207-A1B 1288
65214 7590 02/24/2017
SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
RAYAN, MIHIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
patents @ wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH KURTH REYNOLDS
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,6871
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
The claims are directed to shifting transmitter signal frequencies to
avoid interference in touch displays. Abstract.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Synaptics Incorporated.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of avoiding interference in an integrated
capacitive sensor device and display device, said method
comprising:
transmitting a first transmitter signal having a first
frequency with a combination electrode of said integrated
capacitive sensor device and display device, wherein said
combination electrode is configured for both capacitive
sensing and display updating; and
shifting from transmitting said first transmitter signal with
said combination electrode to transmitting a second transmitter
signal with said combination electrode by changing a duration of
at least one non-display update time period of said display
device, wherein said second transmitter signal has a second
frequency, and wherein said shifting occurs based at least in part
upon an amount of interference.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kaneko et al. US
Imai et al. US
Noguchi et al. US
Chang et al. US
2006/0013507 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
2007/0182723 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
2009/0256818 A1 Oct. 15, 2009
2010/0321305 A1 Dec. 23,2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, 6, 8—10, and 14—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noguchi and Chang. Final Act. 7—15.
2
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noguchi, Chang, and Kaneko. Id. at
15-19.
Claims 7, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noguchi, Chang, and Imai. Id. at 20-21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—21) and the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 17—22). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings
and argument for emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
“an amount of interference ”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Noguchi and Chang teaches or suggests “shifting from transmitting said first
transmitter signal with said combination electrode to transmitting a second
transmitter signal with said combination electrode . . . wherein said shifting
occurs based at least in part upon an amount of interference,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15. App. Br. 7—16; Reply Br.
2—3. Specifically, Appellant argues “Chang alters a frame rate preemptively
when any touch event is detected in order to avoid the potential for certain
3
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
types of interference” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)), but that alteration is
“never concerned with the amount of interference” (Reply Br. 3).
Additionally, Appellant argues modifying Chang “from preemptively
shifting” would “change the principle of operation” of Chang. App. Br. 9—
10 (citation omitted).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chang
teaches that touch displays suffer from electrical interference. See Ans. 18
(citing Chang || 62—65); see also Final Act. 8—9 (citing Chang || 69, 75—
78). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Chang “modulates] [the]
duty frame rate (and/or the duty cycle [)]” of the touch display’s transmitter
signals “to address the influence of electrical interference[,] such as those
from a parasitic signal.” Ans. 18 (citing Chang || 62—65); Final Act. 8
(citing Chang || 69, 75—78).
Appellant’s argument, that Chang’s signal change preemptively
eliminates the occurrence of interference is not a change based on an amount
of interference (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3), is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. The Examiner broadly, but reasonably, interprets that
Chang’s signal change, i.e., the modulation of the display frame rate, is
“based at least in part” on an amount of interference because Chang’s signal
change addresses the influence of electrical interference occurring in touch
displays. Ans. 18. Indeed, Chang teaches “[djevices that integrate an
OLED display structure with a touch sensor configuration unfortunately may
potentially lead to electrical interference issues,” i.e., some amount of
interference occurs in touch displays. Chang 152. Although Chang changes
its signal without measuring an amount of interference at the time of change,
the claims do not require measuring interference at the time of change, and
4
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
Chang’s signal change is based on an amount of interference that would
otherwise occur without the signal change.
Additionally, Appellant’s argument that Chang’s principle of
operation is changed because the Examiner’s combination “requires
altering” Chang’s preemptive signal change (App. Br. 9—10) is not
persuasive because the Examiner’s combination does not alter Chang’s
preemptive signal change (Ans. 20; see Final Act. 8—9). Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Noguchi
and Chang teaches or suggests “shifting from transmitting said first
transmitter signal with said combination electrode to transmitting a second
transmitter signal with said combination electrode . . . wherein said shifting
occurs based at least in part upon an amount of interference,” within the
meaning of claims 1, 8, and 15.
“a refresh rate of said display device ”
Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Noguchi and Chang teaches or suggests “changing a
duration of at least one non-display update time period of said display
device . . . wherein said change does not substantially change a refresh rate
of said display device,” as recited in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim
15. App. Br. 12—13,16. Appellant argues “Chang specifically describes
decreasing the frame rate,” but the claim recites not substantially changing
the refresh rate. Id. at 12—13 (citing Chang | 63).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 19-20; Final Act.
12), and we agree, Chang teaches an alternative embodiment in which “a
5
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
display or other duty cycle may be modulated without modulating a display
frame rate” to avoid interference (Chang 165).
Appellant’s argument directed to the embodiment of Chang which
modulates the display frame rate (App. Br. 12—13 (citing Chang | 63)) does
not address the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 19—20; Final Act. 12) that an
alternative embodiment of Chang modulates Chang’s duty cycle “without
modulating a display frame rate” (Chang | 65). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Noguchi and
Chang teaches or suggests “changing a duration of at least one non-display
update time period of said display device . . . wherein said change does not
substantially change a refresh rate of said display device,” within the
meaning of claims 8 and 15. Nor are we persuaded Chang teaches away
from claim 8 as asserted by Appellants. App. Br. 12—13. Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by Appellant. Furthermore, for the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded the combination of Chang’s
and Noguchi’s teachings and suggestions would change the principle of
operation as asserted by Appellant. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and suggestions
of Chang and Noguchi.
Dependent Claims 7 and 13
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Noguchi, Chang, and Imai teaches or suggests “at least two transitions that
6
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
occur during a non-display update time period associated with updating a
row of said display device,” as recited in claim 7 and similarly recited in
claim 13. App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues “the
sensor capacitor of Imai is not used for capacitive sensing” but rather is used
for “photo sensing with a photo diode.” App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Noguchi
teaches a capacitive touch display device transmitting an AC pulse-driven
signal, Vcom, having two transitions. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Noguchi Figs.
4A-4D, || 34, 43, 49, 56, 60), 20 (citing Noguchi Fig. 3B); Ans. 21 (citing
Noguchi || 34, 43). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Imai teaches
touch sensing signal transitions occur during a horizontal blanking period,
i.e., a non-display update time period. Ans. 22 (citing Imai Fig. 15, || 140,
142). The Examiner modifies the timing of Noguchi’s capacitive touch
sensing signal transitions with the timing taught by Imai such that Noguchi’s
capacitive touch sensing signal transitions occur during a horizontal
blanking period. Final Act. 20.
Appellant’s argument that Imai alone does not teach capacitive touch
sensing (App. Br. 19-20, Reply Br. 4) is not persuasive because it attacks a
reference individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted).
In particular, Appellant has not persuasively addressed the Examiner’s
combination, which relies, in part, on Noguchi to teach capacitive sensing
signals (Final Act. 7—8, 20). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Noguchi, Chang, and Imai
teaches or suggests “at least two transitions that occur during a non-display
7
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
update time period associated with updating a row of said display device,”
within the meaning of claim 7 and 13.
Non-Analogous Art
Appellant contends the Examiner improperly combined Noguchi,
Chang, and Imai. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 4. Appellant initially argues
combining the teachings of Imai and Noguchi with Chang would
impermissibly change the principle of operation of Chang. App. Br. 19.
However, for the reasons set forth above, and because Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument as to how the additional teachings
of Imai would impermissibly change the principle of operation of Chang, we
are not persuaded.
Furthermore, Appellant argues “Imai, while it discusses input sensing,
is non-analogous art to the claims and is also non-analogous to the
capacitive sensing described in Noguchi and Chang.” App. Br. 20-21;
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded because Imai is in the same field of endeavor as
the claimed invention, Noguchi, and Chang. A reference qualifies as
“analogous art,” if it satisfies either of the two following conditions: (1) the
reference is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed; or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MG A Entm’t,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). While Appellant argues “it does
not appear that the Imai art is pertinent to the endeavor,” i.e., Imai allegedly
fails the second condition to qualify as analogous art, Appellant determines
8
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
that “the Imai art discusses input sensing generally, so Imai may be in the
same field or endeavor,” i.e, Imai may satisfy the first condition and thus,
qualify as analogous art. App. Br. 20, 23; Reply Br. 4. Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed invention, Imai, Noguichi, and
Chang are all in the same field of endeavor because those references “are all
directed to a display device with touch detection fimction[s].” Ans. 22;
Final Act. 20. Accordingly, because we agree with the Examiner that Imai
satisfies at least the first analogous art condition, we are not persuaded the
Examiner improperly combined Noguchi, Chang, and Imai.
Remaining Claims 2—6, 9—12, 14, and 16—20
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims
2—6, 9-12, 14, and 16—20. See App. Br. 10, 13, 16—18, 24. For the reasons
set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish
for individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—6, 9-12, 14, and 16—20. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
9
Appeal 2016-003560
Application 13/034,687
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1—
20.
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
10