Ex Parte Stambaugh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

12752785 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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.
12/752,785 04/01/2010 Deron Stambaugh 49256-111796 3219
23644 7590 02/17/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (CH)
P.O. Box 2786
Chicago, IL 60690-2786
EXAMINER
SOTO LOPEZ, JOSE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
Patent-ch@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DERON STAMBAUGH, MARK MATHEWS,
and MARK BURLESON
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 16—20 and 23—31, all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a virtual knob interface. Spec.
14, 27. Claim 16, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in
italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A virtual knob interface for controlling a device or function,
comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of touch sensors associated with said substrate;
a virtual knob associated with said substrate and said plurality
of touch sensors, said virtual knob comprising at least one conductive
mass arranged to move along a path corresponding to the locations of
said touch sensors in response to rotation of said knob;
means for removably retaining said virtual knob to said
substrate; and
a control circuit that enables operation of said device or
function only when said control circuit receives input indicative of
simultaneous or near-simultaneous actuation of first and second ones
of said plurality of touch sensors.
REJECTIONS
Claims 16, 17, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bigelow (US 4,158,216; issued June 12, 1979).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bigelow and Berstis et al. (US
6,115,030; issued Sept. 5, 2000) (“Berstis”).
2
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bigelow and Goldenberg et al. (US
6,636, 197 Bl; issued Oct. 21, 2003) (“Goldenberg”).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bigelow and Posso et al. (US
5,627,531; issued May 6, 1997) (“Posso”).
Claims 23, 24, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bigelow and Platt et al. (US 5,920,131; issued July
6, 1999) (“Platt”).
Claims 25—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bigelow, Platt, and Peterson et al. (US
2009/0065578 Al; published Mar. 12, 2009) (“Peterson”).
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bigelow and Baier (US 2007/0181410
Al; published Aug. 9, 2007) (“Baier”).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bigelow.
ANALYSIS
After considering each of Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the
Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. Ans. 2—14; Final Act. 2—24. Our discussions here will be
limited to the following points of emphasis.
3
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
Section 102 - Claim 16
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Bigelow discloses “input
indicative of simultaneous or near-simultaneous actuation of first and second
ones of said plurality of touch sensors,” as recited in independent claim 16?
Appellants argue “Bigelow does not disclose or suggest that input
from plural touch sensors is required in order to enable operation of a device
or function[.]” App. Br. 10; see also App. Br. 11. Appellants argue neither
a first or second embodiment of Bigelow discloses the disputed limitation.
App. Br. 11. With respect to the second embodiment, Appellants contend:
control is effected by the capacitance between the knob
electrode 28 and a pair of electrodes 12a-12g, rather than
capacitance to ground of any of electrodes 12a-12g through
knob electrode 28 and the user. . . As such, to the extent that
any of electrodes 12a-12g could be deemed to be part of a
sensor, one skilled in the art would recognize that a single such
sensor would necessarily comprise an adjacent pair (that is,
two) of such electrodes. Nothing in Bigelow teaches or
suggests the knob electrode 28 coupling with more than a single
pair of electrodes 12a-12g at a given time.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Bigelow describes a
capacitive touch control, including a control knob. Bigelow Abstract.
Bigelow describes a multiplicity of conductive pads or electrodes, 12a-12g,
that are positioned in a spaced-apart manner from each other and extend
radially from a common center of a touch control. Id. at col. 2,11. 46—58. A
knob 20 may be rotated to align an electrode 28 and a particular one of
electrodes 12a-12g to control function of the knob. Bigelow, col. 3,11. 42—
45. A user may therefore grasp a control knob to change the impedance
4
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
between electrical ground and one of electrodes 12a-12g, which is aligned
with electrode 28. Id. at col. 3,11. 44—55. Bigelow also describes a second
embodiment where control may be effectuated between electrode 28 and a
pair of electrodes 12a-12g using a capacitive bridging technique. Id. at col.
4,11. 3AA6.
We agree with the Examiner that the second embodiment discloses the
claimed limitation. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 10-11. Specifically, we agree with
the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
language in light of Appellants’ Specification, each of Bigelow’s electrodes
12a—12g discloses one claimed touch sensor, and therefore alignment of
electrode 28 with a pair of electrodes 12a-12g discloses “simultaneous or
near-simultaneous actuation of first and second ones of said plurality of
touch sensors.” Ans. 10—11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the
“specification provides that the touch sensors are something more than
merely one or more electrodes . . . [but rather are] one or more electrodes
coupled to some form of control circuit.” Reply Br. 4. For example, the
Specification states “[t]ouch sensors 18 could be embodied as any suitable
form of sensor that can be actuated by proximity or touch of a user’s finger
or object. . . touch sensors 18 could be embodied as one or more sensing
electrodes[.]” Spec. 116, emphasis added. The Specification also states
“[t]hese references disclose touch sensors including a substantially planar or
electrode in the form of a conductive pad and could further include an
electrode substantially surrounding the conductive pad” and “[i]n other
embodiments, touch sensors 18 could be embodied as capacitive touch
sensors having one or more sensing electrodes and corresponding control
5
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
circuitry, as would be understood by one of skilled in the art.” Id.; see also
Spec. 117 (“Touch sensors 18 and/or the sensing electrodes thereof. . .”).
Regardless, Bigelow describes such control circuitry associated with
electrodes 12a-12g. See Bigelow, col. 1,11. 50-58 (“Each of the radially
extended electrodes 12a-12g has a separate electrical lead 14a-14g,
respectively, extending therefrom to circuitry (not shown) of known type for
recognizing a change in capacitance [.]”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of independent claim 16. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17 and 28, and the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 18—20, 23—27, and 29, which were not
separately argued.
Section 103 - Claim 30
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bigelow
and Baier teaches or suggests “wherein said control circuit enables operation
of said device or function only when both said first conductive mass and said
second conductive mass, respectively, are simultaneously or nearly
simultaneously proximate said first and second ones of said plurality of
touch sensors,” as recited in claim 30?
Appellants contend:
Baier discloses that a user’s finger must contact a contact
sensor 45 associated with one of the upper outer sensors 472 in
order to elicit an actuation. Baier goes on to state that the user’s
finger can be moved from the contact sensor 452 corresponding
to one of the upper outer sensors 472 to the contact sensor 452
corresponding to the other of the upper outer sensors 472 in
order to elicit a different actuation. Nowhere does Baier
6
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
disclose that the user’s finger would need to be (or even could
be) placed on both of the upper outer sensors 472 at the same
time to as to elicit plural actuations at the same time.
App. Br. 13—14. Further, Appellants argue “Baier appears to disclose that
two actuations cannot be simultaneously or nearly simultaneously elicited.”
App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 21—22; Ans. 11—13. Appellants’ arguments
are directed to Baier in isolation, rather than as combined with Bigelow. It
is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As described supra, the
Examiner relies on Bigelow to teach the first and second sensors and the first
conductive mass. See Ans. 12. The Examiner relies on Baier to teach the
claimed second conductive mass and related limitations. Ans. 12.
In addition, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim language, which does not recite limitations pertaining to
the placement of the user’s finger. As to Appellants’ arguments that Baier
doesn’t teach that plural sensors must be actuated simultaneously or nearly
simultaneously (App. Br. 14), the claim language merely requires the
“operation of device or function only when both said first conductive mass
and second conductive mass, respectively, are simultaneously or nearly
simultaneously proximate said first and second ones of said plurality of
touch sensors.” (Emphasis added.)
7
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
Baier describes a rotary toggle with outer electrodes 472a and 472b.
Baier 159. These outer electrodes are connected to contact sensors 452a
and 452b on the top of the rotary toggle. Id. at || 59, 62. Baier also
describes lower outer electrodes 473a-e, which cooperate with outer
electrodes 472a and 472b. Id. at | 60. As such, “they form a concentric,
circumferential ring, so that on rotating rotary toggle 424 the upper
electrodes 472a and b always circulate above the lower outer electrodes
473a-e.” Id. at | 60. Therefore, “[if] a person contacts contact sensor 452a
connected to outer electrode 472a and rotates it in accordance with FIG. 5 to
a display for a hotplate, this is detected through the lower outer electrode
473 in this rotation position.” Id. at 162. Further, Baier explicitly describes
that two contact sensors may be actuated. Id. at | 63. For the reasons set
forth by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that Baier’s teachings,
when combined with Bigelow, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 12-13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claim 30.
Section 103 - Claim 31
Issue 3: Did the examiner err in finding Bigelow teaches or suggests
“wherein said control circuit enables operation of said device or function
only when said at least two of said user’s fingers or said at least a user’s
finger and thumb, respectively, are simultaneously or nearly simultaneously
proximate said first and second ones of said plurality of touch sensors,” as
recited in claim 31?
8
Appeal 2016-003413
Application 12/752,785
Appellants contend “nothing in Bigelow teaches or suggests that a
user must apply two fingers or a finger and a thumb to the knob 20 in order
to enable operation of a device or function. One skilled in the art would
recognize that a single fingertip applied to the end of the knob could be used
to turn the knob.” App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Bigelow describes
“facilitating] body capacitance effects when the control knob [] is grasped.”
Bigelow, col. 1,11. 45—50. Bigelow further describes “when the user grasps
the control knob, [it] serves to change the impedance between electrical
ground and that one of electrodes 12a-12g with which electrode 28 is
aligned.” Id. at col. 3,1. 47—50. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13—14)
that a user “grasping” the control knob teaches or suggests “at least two of
user’s fingers or said at least a user’s finger and thumb, respectively, are
simultaneously or nearly simultaneously proximate said first and second
ones of said plurality of touch sensors.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claim 31.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—20 and
23—31 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
9