Ex Parte Reynolds et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613034679 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/034,679 02/24/2011 65214 7590 06/02/2016 SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP 123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joseph Kurth REYNOLDS 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. SYNA-20091207-AlA 1276 EXAMINER RAYAN, MIHIR K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): patents@wagnerblecher.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH KUR TH REYNOLDS, SHAHROOZ SHAHPARNIA, ADAM SCHWARTZ, and JOEL JORDAN Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 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 Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). WeAFFRIM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Synaptics, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 Invention The claims are directed to a method of interference avoidance by demodulating a resulting signal using a first way and also demodulating the resulting signal using a second, different way. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of interference avoidance for a capacitive sensor device, said method comprising: transmitting a transmitter signal with a transmitter electrode of said capacitive sensor device; receiving a resulting signal with a receiver electrode of said capacitive sensor device, said resulting signal corresponds to said transmitter signal; acquiring a first demodulated output by demodulating said resit/ting signal in a first i 1vay; acquiring a second demodulated output by demodulating said resulting signal in a second way, wherein said second way and said first way differ; and shifting from using said first demodulated output for determining positional information to using said second demodulated output for determining positional information, wherein said shifting is 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: Long et al. ("Long") US 6,560,276 Bl 2 May 6, 2003 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 Jia et al. ("Jia") Hargreaves Alderson et al. ("Alderson") Krah et al. ("Krah") Hotelling et al. ("Hotelling") Wu US 2005/0135492 Al US 7,031,886 Bl US 2008/0144743 Al US 2008/0309625 Al US 2008/0309627 Al US 2011/0042152 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: June 23, 2005 Apr. 18, 2006 June 19, 2008 Dec. 18, 2008 Dec. 18, 2008 Feb.24,2011 Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu and Hargreaves. Final Act. 7-11. Claims 4, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Hargreaves, and Hotelling. Id. at 11-13. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Hargreaves, and Jia. Id. at 13-14. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Hargreaves, and Long. Id. at 14--15. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Hargreaves, and Alderson. Id. at 15-16. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu, Hargreaves, and Krah. Id. at 16-17. 3 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' 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. 2-17 (mailed Dec. 20, 2013)) and the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-8 (mailed July 30, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1, 12, and 19 Appellants contend Wu does not teach or suggest "receiving a resulting signal with a receiver electrode of said capacitive sensor device ... acquiring a first demodulated output by demodulating said resulting signal in a first way ... acquiring a second demodulated output by demodulating said resulting signal in a second way, wherein said second way and said first way differ," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19. App. Br. 8-17; Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellants argue "Wu does not describe demodulating the same resulting signal in two different ways." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Wu teaches a sensing signal corresponding to a PN (pseudorandom noise) code modulation at time tl and corresponding to a periodic wave modulation at time t2. See Final Act. 7 (citing Wu i-f 47); see also Ans. 4. The Examiner 4 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 further finds, and we agree, the sensing signal is transmitted to both a PN code demodulator and to a periodic wave demodulator for demodulation by both demodulators-that is, regardless of the corresponding modulation, the sensing signal is demodulated by \the PN code demodulator (a first way) and demodulated by the periodic wave demodulator (a second way). Ans. 4 (citing Wu Fig. 16); Final Act. 7 (citing Wu i-f 4 7). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, the demodulated output of the PN code demodulator is selected at time t 1 and the demodulated output of the periodic wave demodulator is alternatively selected at time t2. Ans. 4 (citing Wu Fig. 16); Final Act. 7 (citing Wu i-f 47). Thus, the sensing (resulting) signal is demodulated in a first way and the sensing signal is demodulated in a second way, wherein the first and the second way differ. Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not recite, and therefore do not require, that demodulated outputs extract "the original information bearing signal" as argued by Appellants. Reply Br. 3. Wu's sensing signal is provided to both the PN code demodulator and the square wave demodulator, and both demodulators demodulate the sensing signal (see Wu i-f 47, Fig. 6). Moreover, the claims do not preclude Wu's sensing signal from being a signal which alternates between PN code modulation and square wave modulation, as argued by Appellants. App. Br. 9-10. Wu's sensing signal corresponds to a PN code modulated signal at time tl and a periodic wave modulated signal at time t2; in other words, the sensing signal is successfully demodulated by PN code demodulator at time tl and periodic wave demodulator at time t2. Wu i-f 47. 5 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wu and Hargreaves teaches or suggests "receiving a resulting signal with a receiver electrode of said capacitive sensor device ... acquiring a first demodulated output by demodulating said resulting signal in a first way ... acquiring a second demodulated output by demodulating said resulting signal in a second way, wherein said second way and said first way differ," within the meaning of claims 1, 12, and 19. Dependent Claim 4 Appellants contend Hotelling does not teach or suggest "transmitting said transmitter signal such that said transmitter signal comprises at least two transitions that occur during a non-display update time period associated with updating a row of a display device," as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 18- 21; Reply Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue "the specification clearly describes that the claim term 'non-display update time associated with updating a row of the display device' refers to a horizontal blanking period that occurs at the end of a row update" (App. Br. 21 ), but "the Hotelling art uses a vertical blanking period" (App. Br. 18). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Hotelling's vertical blanking time period is a time period associated with row update because the vertical blanking time period occurs after the last display row ofHotelling's display device is updated and before the first display row of the display device is updated. Ans. 7 (citing Hotelling Fig. 7); Final Act. 12 (citing Fig. 5); see Hotelling i-fi-137--43. Appellants' argument, that a vertical blanking time period cannot be a time period associated with row update (App. Br. 20-21 ), is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, moreover, is contrary to the 6 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 Specification. Appellants argue that "the [S]pecification clearly describes that the claim term 'non-display update time associated with updating a row of the display device' refers to a horizontal blanking period that occurs at the end of a row update" (id. (citing Spec. i-f 93, Fig. 6)), and the Examiner's reliance on Hotelling' s vertical blanking time period is "in opposition" to the "description in the [S]pecification" (Reply Br. 4--5). However, the cited portions of the Specification provide "an embodiment" (i.e., an example) in which a horizontal blanking time period is associated with row update, but do not provide a limiting definition excluding vertical blanking time periods from being associated with row updates. Moreover, paragraph 122 of the Specification, which Appellants do not discuss, describes "non-display update time period[ s] associated with row update of the display device (e.g., during the horizontal blanking time after a display row or during vertical blanking time after the last display row updated in aframe)" (emphasis added). That is, paragraph 122 states that the time period associated with row update includes vertical blanking time periods after the last display row is updated. Hotelling teaches just such a vertical blanking time period occurring after the last display row is updated. Hotelling Fig. 7 (showing capacitive sensing signals 721 provided after the last LCD row write 706), i-fi-137--43. Hotelling's vertical blanking period is, therefore, "a non-display update time period associated with row update," within the meaning of claim 4. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Wu, Hargreaves, and Hotelling teaches or suggests a "transmitter signal transitions at least twice during a non-display update time 7 Appeal2015-000587 Application 13/034,679 period associated with row update of said display device," as recited in dependent claim 4. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20. See App. Br. 11, 14, 17, 21-27. 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 41.3 7 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 dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation