Ex Parte Skillman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201411379552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte PETER SKILLMAN and ERIC LIU __________ Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 Technology Center 2600 ___________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TRENTON A. WARD, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. WARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, 21, 23-25, 28-31, and 37. Claims 7, 13, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 32-36, and 38-43 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollingsworth (U.S. 2005/0088416 A1; published April 28, 2005) and Jung (U.S. 2006/0007181 A1; published January 12, 2006).1 Claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollingsworth and Salminen (U.S. 6,686,906 B2; issued February 3, 2004). Claims 2-6, 8-10, 14-18, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Bick (U.S. 6,924,789 B2; issued August 2, 2005). Claims 21, 23, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Liess (U.S. 2005/0243053; published November 3, 2005). The Claimed Invention The claimed invention is directed to a computing device providing a keypad that is combined with a sensor mechanism so as to provide a sensor detection region that overlays some or all of the keys in the keypad. Spec. ¶ 11. Figure 1 is reproduced below: 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed on May 9, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed on June 29, 2011. Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 3 As shown above, Figure 1 illustrates the key structure assembly of a computing device, including key structure layer 110 having individual key structures 112, sensor layer 120, and electrical contact layer 130. Fig. 1; Spec. ¶ 24. The sensor detection region may detect (i) the presence of an object (such as a pen, stylus or finger) within the field of sensory layer 120, (ii) the position of the object (e.g., which key structure is overlaid with the object), (iii) the movement of the object within a volume or area of the sensor’s field, and/or (iv) the proximity of the object to contact surfaces 113 of key structure 112. Spec. ¶ 25. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with certain limitations emphasized: 1. A computing device comprising: a keypad having a plurality of key structures that are actuatable; a sensor mechanism that is positioned with respect to the keypad to provide an electric field that overlays at Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 4 least a portion of the keypad, wherein the sensor mechanism is configured to detect an object in the electric field and provide an output indicating the detected object; and one or more processors configured to: receive an input signal that corresponds to the output of the sensor mechanism; and in response to receiving the input signal, triggered by a presence of an object in the electric field, perform an operation that includes operating the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal. DISCUSSION A. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 over Hollingsworth and Jung The Examiner finds that Hollingsworth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except that Hollingsworth does not disclose that the key is actuated and operating the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal. Ans. 5. The Examiner cites Jung, in combination with Hollingsworth, as teaching the operation of the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal after a key is actuated. Id. at 5-6 (citing Jung ¶ 118). Appellants argue that Jung fails to disclose a power consumption profile or a value interpreted from the input signal. App. Br. 7. First, Appellants argue that Jung discloses a mouse with a touch sensor such that the user must have a hand on the touch sensor to activate the mouse. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Jung’s disclosure of Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 5 supplying an operating power to a device is not equivalent to operating the device under the claimed “power consumption profile.” Id. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, however, the Examiner finds that Jung discloses numerous types of touch pads, keys, scrolling tools, and image sensors, which activate various functions such as power supply control and scroll operation. Ans. 6, 19. The Examiner finds that Jung’s disclosure regarding the operation of these devices to reduce power consumption teaches the claimed step of “operating the computing device under a power consumption profile.” Id. The paragraph from Jung cited by the Examiner states that “mouse 60 activates an operation of the power supply 64 only when it is informed from the electrical touch sensor 61 that the human’s hand is in contact with the upper surface of the mouse.” Jung ¶ 118. Jung further discloses that “it is most important to optimally reduce power consumption since a rechargeable battery or a no rechargeable battery is used as a power source to restrict an operating time.” Id. at ¶ 119. In view of this disclosure in Jung, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in applying the operation of a mouse based on the input signal received from the electrical touch sensor, as disclosed in Jung, to the step of “operating the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal,” as recited in claim 1. Second, Appellants argue that nothing in Jung suggests or discloses that a power consumption profile is based on a value that is interpreted from the input signal, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7. The portions of Jung relied upon by the Examiner, however, specifically disclose that “mouse 60 activates an operation of the power supply 64 only when it is informed from Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 6 the electrical touch sensor 61 that the human’s hand is in contact with the upper surface of the mouse.” Jung ¶ 118. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the power consumption profile of the mouse 60 in Jung is operated based on the value received from the electrical touch sensor 61. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in applying the input signal received from the electrical touch sensor 61 in Jung to the “value interpreted from the input signal,” as recited in claim 1. Third, Appellants argue that Jung fails to teach the claimed limitation of “in response to receiving the input signal, triggered by a presence of an object in the electric field.” App. Br. 7 (quoting claim 1). Appellants’ argument is misplaced because the Examiner does not rely upon Jung for the claim limitation regarding receiving the input signal based on the presence of an object. See Ans. 5. In fact, the Examiner cites Hollingsworth to teach this claim limitation. Id. Specifically, the Examiner cites Hollingsworth’s disclosure of an electric field proximity detection system that can “detect the loading of the electrode when an object such as a human finger 10 is in close proximity.” Hollingsworth ¶ 18. Figure 1 of Hollingsworth is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 7 As shown above in Figure 1, Hollingsworth discloses human finger 10 in close proximity, distance 24, to electric field 22, which functions as an antenna for electrode 14. Id. at ¶ 16. When human finger 10 is placed proximate to electrode 14, electrode circuit 72 connected to electrode 14 is loaded. Id. at ¶ 19. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hollingsworth discloses the claimed limitation of “in response to receiving the input signal, triggered by a presence of an object in the electric field,” as recited in claim 1. For all of the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Hollingsworth and Jung. Appellants present similar arguments for claims 11, 12, 25, and 37. App. Br. 7-8. We find Appellants’ arguments for claims 11, 12, 25, and 37 unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 8 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 as obvious over Hollingsworth and Jung. B. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 over Hollingsworth and Salminen The Examiner finds that Hollingsworth discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except that Hollingsworth does not disclose that the key is actuated and operating the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal. Ans. 9. The Examiner cites Salminen, in combination with Hollingsworth, as teaching the operation of the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal after a key is actuated. Id. at 9-10 (citing Salminen, col. 48, l. 58, col. 10, ll. 12-34). Appellants argue that Salminen fails to disclose a power consumption profile or a value interpreted from the input signal. App. Br. 9. First, Appellants argue that Salminen discloses simultaneously closing all the switches to turn on the device (e.g., send a wake-up signal), but that these switches are simply used as a power-on mechanism. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Salminen’s disclosure regarding turning on a device from a power off mode to a power on mode does not amount to operating a device under a power consumption profile. Id. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that Salminen discloses a keyboard including capacitive coupling, which interprets numerous types of input signals from the domes of keys that activate various operations, like a wake-up signal. Ans. 21. The Examiner finds that Salminen’s disclosure regarding the operation of these devices to reduce power consumption teaches the claimed Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 9 step of “operating the computing device under a power consumption profile.” Ans. 10, 21. The paragraph from Salminen cited by the Examiner states that, “[i]f all the switches are closed simultaneously (taking into account a possible delay and the duration of the switches being closed) and if the device is in the power off mode, a wake up signal 504 is sent forward.” Salminen, col. 10, ll. 19-23. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred in applying the operation of a device based on the input signal received from the switches, as disclosed in Salminen, to the step of “operating the computing device under a power consumption profile based on a value interpreted from the input signal,” as recited in claim 1. Second, Appellants argue that nothing in Salminen suggests or discloses that a power consumption profile is based on a value that is interpreted from the input signal. App. Br. 9. The portions of Salminen relied upon by the Examiner, however, specifically disclose that if all the switches are closed, “a wake up signal 504 is sent forward.” Salminen, col. 10, ll. 22-23. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the power consumption profile of the device in Salminen is operated based on the value received from the switches. Ans. 10 (citing Salminen, col. 10, ll. 12-34). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in applying the input signal received from the switches in Salminen to the “value interpreted from the input signal,” as recited in claim 1. Third, Appellants argue that Salminen fails to teach the claimed limitation of “in response to receiving the input signal, triggered by a presence of an object in the electric field.” App. Br. 10 (quoting claim 1). Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 10 Similar to the obviousness rejection based on Hollingsworth and Jung, the Examiner does not rely upon Salminen for the claim limitation regarding receiving the input signal based on the presence of an object, but instead cites Hollingsworth to teach this claim limitation. Ans. 9 (citing Hollingsworth ¶ 18). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the failure of Salminen to disclose the claimed limitation of “in response to receiving the input signal, triggered by a presence of an object in the electric field.” For all of the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Hollingsworth and Salminen. Appellants present similar arguments for claims 11, 12, 25, and 37. App. Br. 10. We find Appellants’ arguments for claims 11, 12, 25, and 37 unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, 25, and 37 as obvious over Hollingsworth and Salminen. C. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2-6, 8-10, 14-18, 24 and 28 over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Bick Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-6, 8-10, 14-18, 24, and 28 as obvious over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Bick. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8-10, 14-18, 24, and 28. Appeal 2012-000184 Application 11/379,552 11 D. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21, 23, and 29-31 over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Liess Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 21, 23, and 29-31 as obvious over Hollingsworth, Jung/Salminen, and Liess. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, and 29-31. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, 21, 23-25, 28-31, and 37 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation