Ex Parte Roberts

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2010

10140209 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JERRY B. ROBERTS
____________

Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: January 11, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC. S. HOFF
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-81, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for detecting the
location of a touch on a touch sensor (Spec. 2:28-29). According to
Appellant, a touch signal corresponding to a touch on a touch screen is
acquired and a first occurrence of a touch signal shape in the touch signal is
detected (Spec. 3:1-4). The touch location is then determined using touch
signal information obtained in response to detecting the touch signal shape
(Spec. 3:4-6).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A method for determining a touch location on a touch
screen, comprising:
acquiring a touch signal corresponding to a touch on the touch
screen;
detecting the first occurrence of a predetermined shape in the
touch signal, the predetermined shape being associated with low
signal error; and
determining touch location using touch signal information
obtained in response to detecting the predetermined shape.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims:
Peronneau US 3,657,475 Apr. 18, 1972
DeCosta US 4,340,777 Jul. 20, 1982
Meadows US 5,053,757 Oct. 1, 1991
Makinwa US 6,271,836 B1 Aug. 7, 2001

Claims 1, 3-6, 7-11, 23, 25-31, 33-37, 44, 47, 48, and 79 stand
rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Makinwa in
view of Meadows.
Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209

3
Claims 2, 24, 32, 38-43, 45, 46, 49-70, 73-78, 80, and 81 stand
rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Makinwa in
view of Meadows and Peronneau.
Claims 12-22, 71, and 72 stand rejected as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Makinwa in view of Meadows, Peronneau, and
DeCosta.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Brief
and the Answer1 for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s
position that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Makinwa and
Meadows teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Specifically,
Appellant and the Examiner disagree as to whether the combination of
references discloses the claimed step of “detecting the first occurrence of a
predetermined shape in the touch signal, the predetermined shape being
associated with low signal error.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Examiner finds that Makinwa teaches the steps of
acquiring a touch signal, detecting the first occurrence of a shape, and
determining the touch location and relies on columns 4, 18, and 19 of
Meadows for disclosing that the predetermined shape is associated with low
signal error (Ans. 3-4).

1 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 18, 2007, and the Answer
mailed March 21, 2008.
Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209

4
2. Meadows relates to a touch panel device for locating touch on a
touch sensing surface and to minimizing the effects of noise on the touch
panel device operation. (Col. 4, ll. 37-45.)
3. Meadows describes circuitry, including an analog multiplier 69,
used for filtering and lowering the noise. (Col. 18, l. 65-col. 19, l. 22.)
4. Meadows also discloses that the analog multiplier is further
used for enhanced noise rejection and more accurate touch location
determination. (Col. 19, ll. 28-40.)

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

ANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of the noise
reduction scheme of Meadows as the claimed detection of a predetermined
shape associated with low signal error (FF 1). As asserted by Appellant (Br.
10), the cited portions of Meadows merely discuss minimizing the effects of
noise on the operation of a touch panel device and determining the location
of touch (FF 2), and not detecting a shape associated with low signal error,
as recited in claim 1. Meadows further describes an analog multiplier as a
part of the touch panel device circuitry where the touch signal is
demodulated for filtering and lowering noise (FF 3).
Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209

5
We also agree with Appellant (Br. 11) that Meadows’ disclosed
circuitry merely enhances noise rejection and provides more accurate
determination of touch location. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion
that filtering noise in Meadows teaches a predetermined shape by the
amplitude changes where the predetermined shape is associated with low
signal error (Ans. 13), we observe that the teachings identified in Meadows
are only related to noise reduction and accurate determination of touch
location (FFs 3-4). As stated by Appellant (Br. 11), Meadows does not
include any teaching or suggestion of detecting the first occurrence of a
predetermined shape that is associated with low signal error.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the combination of Makinwa
and Meadows does not disclose or suggest the claimed step of “detecting the
first occurrence of a predetermined shape in the touch signal, the
predetermined shape being associated with low signal error.” Therefore, the
proposed combination fails to render obvious independent claims 1, 23, 31,
47, 48, and 79, which include similar limitations, as well as claims 3-6, 7-11,
25-30, 33-37, 44, dependent thereon.
We also agree with Appellant’s arguments regarding the remaining
claims (Br. 11-16), that the other applied references provide no teachings to
cure the deficiencies of the Makinwa/Meadows combination as discussed
above. Therefore, in view of our analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 2, 12-22, 24, 32, 38-43, 45, 46, 49-78, 80, and 81 cannot
be sustained.

Appeal 2009-003505
Application 10/140,209

6
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-81 is reversed.

REVERSED

ke

3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427