Ex Parte Reynolds et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12195351 (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.
12/195,351 08/20/2008 Joseph K. Reynolds SYNA-20070309-A1 8354
65214 7590 02/23/2017
SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
MATTHEWS, ANDRE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
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):
patents @ wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH K. REYNOLDS and KIRK HARGREAVES
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—26, 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] capacitive sensing device for
sensing a user input [that] comprises a resistive sheet, a plurality of
electrodes, at least one sensing node, and at least one charge integrator.”
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A capacitive sensing device for sensing a user input, said
device comprising:
a resistive sheet;
a plurality of electrodes disposed on a plurality of edge
regions of said resistive sheet and configured for concurrently
applying different excitation voltages to different edge regions of
said resistive sheet such that a substantially steady state voltage
gradient is established on said resistive sheet, wherein at least
one of said different excitation voltages is a negative excitation
voltage and at least one of said different excitation voltages is a
positive excitation voltage;
at least one sensing node disposed on at least one of said
plurality of edge regions of said resistive sheet and configured
for sensing a resulting charge on said resistive sheet after
establishment of said steady state voltage gradient and a
cessation of application of said different excitation voltages; and
1 Appellants identify Synaptics Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
at least one charge integrator coupled to said at least one
sensing node and configured for measuring said resulting charge
to produce a measurement.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Geaghan (US 2009/0167326 Al; published July 2, 2009), Geaghan (US
2009/0127003 Al; published May 21, 2009), and Baxter (US 2005/0099188
Al; published May 12, 2005). (See Final Act. 2—17.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue the rejections of claims 1—9 are in error for the
following reasons:
1. “[B]y (1) applying a single excitation voltage, or (2) applying
different excitation voltages that are the same polarity, Geaghan ’326
teaches away from or at minimum is silent with respect to ‘a plurality of
electrodes . . . configured for concurrently applying different excitation
voltages . . . wherein at least one of said different excitation voltages is a
negative excitation voltage and at least one of said different excitation
voltages is a positive excitation voltage,’ ... as recited in Claim 1.” (See
App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted.)
2. “[B]y being silent in regards to the polarity of the excitation
voltages, Geaghan ’003 does not teach ‘a plurality of electrodes . . .
configured for concurrently applying different excitation voltages . . .
wherein at least one of said different excitation voltages is a negative
excitation voltage and at least one of said different excitation voltages is a
3
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
positive excitation voltage,’ as claimed.” (See App. Br. 12, emphasis
omitted.)
3. “Baxter does nothing to cure the . . . deficiencies of Geaghan
’326 and Geaghan ’003” because “an alternating voltage does not teach or
suggest ‘concurrently applying different excitation voltages to different edge
regions’ or ‘wherein at least one of said different excitation voltages is a
negative excitation voltage and at least one of said different excitation
voltages is a positive excitation voltage.’” (App. Br. 12—13.)
4. “Geaghan ’326 does not teach ‘sensing a resulting charge on
said resistive sheet after establishment of said steady state voltage gradient
and a cessation of application of said different excitation voltages,’ as
claimed.” (App. Br. 13, emphasis omitted.)
5. “Geaghan ’003 does not overcome the deficiencies of Geaghan
’326 because the combination of Geaghan ’326 and Geaghan ’003 changes
the principle operation of Geaghan ’326.” (App. Br. 14.)
Appellants repeat, more or less verbatim, one or more of these
arguments for the remaining claim sets. (See App. Br. 16—36.)
ANALYSIS
Contention 1
Appellants’ argument that “Geaghan ’326 teaches away” (App. Br.
26) is unpersuasive because simply teaching another way is not “teaching
away.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior
art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).
4
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
Contention 2
Appellants’ second argument, that Geaghan ’003 is “silent in regard to
the polarity of the excitation voltages” (App. Br. 27) is ineffective because
the Examiner relies on Baxter for that subject matter. (See Final Act. 4
(“Baxter teaches . . . excitation voltages applied are different and at least one
of said excitation voltages is a negative excitation voltage and at least one of
said different excitation voltages is a positive excitation voltage.”).)
Contention 3
The Final Action cited Geaghan ’003 as satisfying the “concurrently
applying” claim language. (See Final Act. 3.) Appellants assert that
“applying a positive voltage and then later applying a negative voltage” is
not sufficient to teach or suggest the “concurrently” limitation. (Reply Br.
2.) We find this argument unpersuasive because the cited portions of
Geaghan ’003, paragraphs 29-32 and 91 and Table 1, describe generation of
a voltage gradient on a sensor where two of the four voltages are 0 and two
are +VCC. Thus, the reference teaches concurrent application of two different
voltages, for example, 0V at point UF and +VCC at point UR. As noted
above, the Examiner relies on Baxter for the different polarities.
Contention 4
Appellants next argue that “Geaghan ’326 . . . describes] that
capacitance is measured at the comers of its sensor while the excitation
voltages are being applied rather than after the cessation of their
application.” (App. Br. 28.) This contention fails to show error because the
Examiner relies on Geaghan ’003 for this feature and, as the Examiner
explains, “Geaghan (’003) teaches a method for determining touch position
where nodes (UF,UP,FF,FR) are used to produce a voltage gradient to store
5
Appeal 2016-003627
Application 12/195,351
a charge on the capacitor and once the charge[] is stored the nodes
(UL,UP,LL,LR) are turned off and the charge is measured.” (Ans. 5, citing
Geaghan’003 1129-31.)
Contention 5
Finally, Appellants argue that “Geaghan ’003 does not overcome the
deficiencies of Geaghan ’326 because the combination of Geaghan ’326 and
Geaghan ’003 changes the principle operation of Geaghan ’326.” (App. Br.
29.) We agree with the Examiner, however, that “the combination of
Geaghan (’326) and (’003) would not change the principal operation because
the structure of the two panels are the same, [and] the combination would
simply result in an alternative driving method for the panel.” (Ans. 9.)
Conclusion
As we find Appellants’ arguments insufficient to show Examiner
error, we sustain the Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1—26.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—26 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).
AFFIRMED
6