Ex Parte Ryynanen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2018

11409517 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/409,517 04/20/2006
10949 7590 08/09/2018
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matti Ryynanen
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.
042933/417484 1145
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2018 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTI RYYNANEN, MARKO KARHINIEMI,
JANI MAENPAA, JOONAS RYYNANEN, and TESSA RYYNANEN
Appeal2018-001823
Application 11/409 ,517 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 42-51 and 53---61. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' invention is a sensor arrangement for an electronic device.
A sensor is adapted to generate an electric field in an area of user input
means, and to enable a detection of a change in the electric field. The sensor
arrangement further comprises a conductive web, arranged between the
1 The real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy.
2 Claims 1--41 and 5 2 has been cancelled.
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
sensor and an external surface of the user input means, in order to
concentrate the volume of the generated electrical field.
Claim 42 is reproduced below:
4 2. A sensor arrangement comprising:
a capacitive sensor configured to generate an electric field in an
area of a panel of an electronic device and detect a change in the electric
field due to a user input disturbance, the panel arranged at a distance from
the capacitive sensor; and
a grid disposed between the capacitive sensor and an external surface
of the panel, the grid comprising a first plurality of electrically conductive
lines disposed, at least in part, between the capacitive sensor and the external
surface of the panel and arranged in a first direction and a second plurality of
electrically conductive lines disposed, at least in part, between the capacitive
sensor and the external surface of the panel and arranged in a different
second direction such that the first plurality of electrically conductive lines
intersects with the second plurality of electrically conductive lines at a
plurality of intersections of the grid disposed, at least in part, between the
capacitive sensor and the external surface of the panel and forming a
plurality of mesh eyes, wherein the grid is not in contact with the capacitive
sensor.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
FRICKER et al.
MULLIGAN et al.
HOLLINGSWORTH
US 2001/0013855 Al
US 2004/0119701 Al
US 2005/0088416 Al
Aug. 16, 2001
June 24, 2004
Apr. 28, 2005
Claims 42--47, 50-55, and 57---61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fricker.
Claims 48 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Fricker and Mulligan.
Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Fricker and Hollingsworth.
2
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed August 29, 2017); the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
December 13, 2017); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 13,
2017); and the Non-Final Office Action, mailed March 31, 2017 ("Non-
Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does Fricker disclose a grid disposed between the capacitive sensor
and an external surface of the panel, wherein the grid is not in contact with
the capacitive sensor?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 42--47, 50-55, AND 57---61
The Examiner finds that Fricker discloses, inter alia, the claimed
"capacitive sensor configured to generate an electric field in an area of a
panel of an electronic device and detect a change in the electric field due to a
user disturbance." Non-Final Act. 3--4. This element is recited in nearly
identical terms in each of independent claims 42, 55, 57, 58, and 60.
Referring to Figures 3A and 3B of Fricker, the Examiner finds that Fricker
discloses routing layer 365 and X/Y traces 350, 360. Non-Final Act. 3;
Fricker ,r,r 34, 45, 46.
The Examiner further finds that Fricker discloses "a grid
disposed between the capacitive sensor and an external surface of the
panel," explaining that "Figure 3B discloses a grid from the
arrangement/overlapping of X-traces 360 and Y-traces 350 (read the
two together as a grid" and reminding the reader that the "interpreted
sensor" constitutes "layer 365 and below." Non-Final Act. 4. This
3
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
element is also recited in nearly identical terms in each of independent
claims 42, 55, 57, 58, and 60.
Figure 3B of Fricker is reproduced below:
~~ 7.~· c-··---·-·-··~·-·-·----·-·.----------------------------. ------b~1~ctrk, ·-------···---· ··.·-··,.---.. -., ... ,:.:---•-•--------~~---~~~-~~~7
Figure 3B of Fricker illustrates an embodiment of the capacitive
sensor. Fricker ,r 21.
The Examiner construes "layer 365 and below," i.e. routing layer 365,
substrate 240, and sensor plane 245, as constituting the parts of the
"interpreted sensor." See Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner argues that
sensor plane 245 "clearly has a role to perform in capacitive sensing" and "is
used in both resistive and capacitive sensing." Ans. 5.
4
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
We disagree with the Examiner's description of the function of sensor
plane 245, and its alleged role in capacitive sensing in Fricker' s invention.
First, Fricker discloses that although sensor plane 245 "is printed on the
same substrate as capacitive sensor 230, ... it is an element of resistive
sensor 210." Fricker ,r 41. Sensor plane 245 "is a conductive material that
is flexible enough to contact resistive plane 310 when pressure is applied by
pointing element 260." Id. Second, Fricker discloses the components of
capacitive sensor 230, and in so doing does not mention sensor plane 245.
"Capacitive sensor 230 comprises a set of Y-traces 350 and a set of X-traces
360 printed on flexible substrate 240 .... A routing layer 365 is printed
above substrate 240. Routing layer 365 is used to couple each of Y-traces
350 to a current source (not shown)." Fricker ,r,r 45, 46. Third,
FIG. 8 depicts the operation of capacitive sensor 230. Although
only shown for X-traces 360, the operation is similar for Y-traces
350. One at a time, each ofX-traces 360 are coupled to a current
source, while the others are coupled to GROUND. The system
cycles through each of the traces many times every second . . .
In its steady state configuration, the capacitance on each of the
traces has a value based on the stray capacitances between X-
traces 360 and other elements in the system. Together, the
capacitances total to a value of Co, referencing the steady state
capacitance of an individual trace. When pointing element
comes in close proximity to X-traces 360, the capacitance
measured on each nearby X-trace is changed because of the
presence of pointing element 260. This value, referred to herein
as Cfinger, is measured on each of X-traces 360. The change in
capacitance is determined by subtracting Cfinger - Co.
Fricker ,r 49.
From the disclosures in Fricker cited supra, then, we find that Fricker
does not disclose "a grid disposed between the capacitive sensor and an
5
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
external surface of the panel." First, the grid in Fricker is comprised of Y-
traces 350 and X-traces 360. The grid in Fricker is the capacitive sensor;
thus, it cannot be disposed between the capacitive sensor and an external
surface of the panel. Second, because Fricker explicitly discloses that sensor
plane 245 is an element of resistive sensor 210, and because Fricker never
discloses that sensor plane forms any portion of, or performs any function
with regard to, capacitive sensor 230, we find that sensor plane 245 is not an
element of capacitive sensor 230. Consequently, the "grid" in Fricker,
comprising Y-traces 350 and X-traces 360, cannot be disposed between the
capacitive sensor and an external surface of the panel, because sensor plane
245 is not part of Fricker' s capacitive sensor.
We find that Fricker does not disclose all of the elements of claims
42--47, 50-55, and 57---61. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102
rejection.
CLAIMS 48, 49, AND 56
We do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 42 and 55, from which
claims 48, 49, and 56 variously depend. We have reviewed Mulligan and
Hollingsworth, and we find that they do not remedy the deficiencies of
Fricker. Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 48
and 56 over Fricker and Mulligan, for the reasons expressed with respect to
claims 42 and 55 supra. Similarly, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection
of claim 49 over Fricker and Hollingsworth, for the reasons expressed with
respect to claim 42 supra.
6
Appeal2018-001823
Application No. 11/409,517
CONCLUSION
Fricker does not disclose a grid disposed between the capacitive
sensor and an external surface of the panel, wherein the grid is not in contact
with the capacitive sensor.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 42-51 and 53-61 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7