Ex Parte Suggs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12247784 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/247,784 10/08/2008
22879 7590 03/31/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradley Suggs
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.
82247531 8630
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENY AM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY SUGGS
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .. • .. ,....,-TTr'1.r-"\ l\-1,....AI/'\. £',"1 Appeuant' seeKs our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final rejection of claims 2-5, 7-12, 14--16, and 18-23, which are
the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to providing a touch-sensitive display
using infrared light emitting diodes. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 15 is illustrative (lettering and emphases added):
15. A touch-sensitive display device comprising:
a first layer comprising a plurality of emitters
including a particular emitter, the plurality of
emitters disposed in a grid, wherein during a first
moment in time, the particular emitter is to emit
electromagnetic energy, and wherein during a
second moment in time, the particular emitter is to
receive electromagnetic energy and to generate a
signal in response to the received electromagnetic
energy, wherein the emitted electromagnetic energy
and the received electromagnetic energy are [L 1]
invisible to a human eye;
a controller, coupled to the first layer, to
select successive sub-grids of emitters from the
plurality of emitters, \~1herein at least one given
emitter of each sub-grid receives electromagnetic
energy while the other emitters in the sub-grid emit
electromagnetic energy; and
[L2] a second layer to generate images
visible to the human eye, wherein the
electromagnetic energy is received by the particular
emitter after being reflected from an object passed
in front of the second layer and reflected through the
second layer to the first layer, wherein the second
layer is interposed between the first layer and a user
of the touch-sensitive display device.
2
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
The Rejection
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14--16, and 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Payne (US 2004/0245438 Al; Dec. 9, 2004)
and Lynch (US 2010/0001978 Al; Jan. 7, 2010).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Payne teaches or suggests limitation L 1 via
teaching an emitter receiving and generating electromagnetic energy in the
form of visible light. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner further finds one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed emitted and received
electromagnetic energy to encompass both visible and invisible energy. Id.
The Examiner thus finds the claim element limiting the electromagnetic
energy to energy "invisible to a human eye" to be a matter of design choice,
and therefore, within the teachings or suggestions of Payne. Id.; Ans. 17-18.
With regard to limitation L2, the Examiner finds Payne and Lynch together
teach or suggest claim 15, by combining Lynch's LCD 102 (i.e., second
layer to generate images visible to the human eye) with Payne's invention.
Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 18-19.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Payne teaches or
suggests limitation L 1 because Payne's diode 104 emits visible light, not
invisible light. App. Br. 7. Appellant elaborates that Payne's diode must
emit visible light to fulfill its intended purpose, namely providing visible
light for visual communication and for scanning documents. Id. at 7-8;
Reply Br. 2.2 With regard to limitation L2, Appellant argues the Examiner
2 Every page of Appellant's Reply Brief is numbered "i." We refer to the
Reply Brief herein as if sequentially numbered beginning with the cover.
3
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
errs because Lynch's LCD 102 "appears to be the entire 'display device,"'
and therefore, cannot teach or suggest the claimed second layer. App. Br. 8-
9. Finally, Appellant argues Lynch's cover glass 104 cannot teach or
suggest limitation L2 because "Lynch says nothing whatsoever about the
'cover glass 104' being able to generate images visible to the human eye."
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5---6.
We have considered Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, the Examiner's Answer thereto, and the evidence of record.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Rather, we agree with and
adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Action and Answer. We further emphasize the following.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding limitation
L 1 for at least the following reasons. The cited portions of Payne teach the
display emits light using diodes 104 and the display has functions including,
but not limited to, visual communication with the user. Payne, i-f 24. Payne
teaches the same display may emit light but not necessarily to display light
(i.e., convey information) for human interpretation/consumption, "especially
in certain implementations such those directed to a scanning feature."
Payne, i-f 25. Further, the display screen may not display light (but may
nevertheless emit light) for touch-sensitive features. Id. These teachings
thus disclose fulfilling Payne's intended purpose using diodes that may emit
light but not necessarily display light for human interpretation/consumption.
We agree with the Examiner that these teachings suggest, at minimum, the
use of energy invisible to the human eye, rather than being limited to visible
light.
4
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
With regard to limitation L2, we are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments because they are not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Lynch's LCD
102, including its cover glass 104, with Payne's invention. Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 18-19. Therefore, Appellant's arguments addressing cover glass 104
alone are of no moment. Further, we are also not persuaded that the claimed
second layer cannot encompass Lynch's LCD 102. The Specification recites
the second layer "can include, but is not limited to one or more display
technologies such as, a liquid crystal display ('LCD'), a plasma display, a
penetron display, or the like." Spec. i-f 40. The Specification adds the
second layer "can be an LCD screen." Id. In light of these disclosures, we
are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that claim term "second layer"
cannot encompass an LCD such as Lynch's LCD 102.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) of independent claim 15. Appellant presents no further arguments
regarding claims 2-5, 7-12, 14, 16, and 18-23. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2-5, 7-12, 14, 16,
and 18-23 for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-5, 7-12, 14--16,
and 18-23.
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).
5
Appeal2014-002972
Application 12/247,784
AFFIRMED
6