Ex Parte TOKUTAKE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2019

13904742 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/904,742 05/29/2013
154930 7590
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
02/08/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenji TOKUTAKE
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.
10164US02 2114
EXAMINER
CHOW,WINGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2019 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):
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENJI TOKUTAKE
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EV ANS, and SCOTT B. HOW ARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-16, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
Oral argument was heard on January 17, 2019. A transcript of the
hearing will be added to the record in due course.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Applicant, Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "an electronic
device including a touch panel detecting an operation input to an operation
surface based on a change in a capacitance occurring between an object that
touches or approaches an operation surface and the operation surface."
Spec. 1:12-16. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a display;
a touch panel formed on or integrally with the display
and configured to detect an object touching or approaching the
touch panel; and
circuitry configured to
detect an angle that the object forms with the touch
panel based on first capacitance values detected on the
touch panel and second capacitance values detected on an
imaginary plane located above and parallel to a planar
surface of the touch panel based on an output of the touch
panel; and
control content displayed on the display based on
the detected angle.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Kandogan
Kearn
Buchan
Margalit
Takano
US 6,184,867 Bl
US 2009/0085881 Al
US 2012/0092324 Al
US 2012/0194454 Al
WO 2011/108650 Al
2
Feb. 6,2001
Apr. 2, 2009
Apr. 19, 2012
Aug. 2, 2012
Sept. 9, 2011
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kearn in view of Buchan and Margalit.
Final Act. 3-7; Adv. Act. 2.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kearn in view of Buchan, Margalit, and Takano.
Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kearn in view of Buchan, Margalit, and Kandogan.
Final Act. 9-14.
Claims 12-14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kearn in view of Buchan, Margalit, Takano, and
Kandogan. Final Act. 14--16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims that
the Examiner erred.
The Examiner finds Buchan teaches detecting "second capacitance
values detected on an imaginary plane located above and parallel to a planar
surface of the touch panel" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. More
specifically, the Examiner finds "Buchan discloses a touch sensor, when
approached by a finger, detects capacitance values based on an imaginary
plane located above and parallel to a planar surface of the touch panel." Id.
3
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
( citing Buchan Fig 1 OB, ,r 149). The Examiner further finds that "the
imaginary capacitor plate generated by a finger in the proximity of a touch
device an obvious concept to one of ordinary skill in the art." Adv. Act. 2.
The Examiner further finds that
Buchan teaches in Fig. 1 OB a finger 104 7 approaching the
touch screen forming a conceptual parallel pate capacitor
1055b, and teaches an equation in [0149] to evaluate the
capacitance value of this conceptual parallel plate capacitor.
The upper plate of this conceptual parallel plate capacitor reads
the "imaginary plane located above and parallel to a planar
surface of the touch panel" limitation.
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3--4.
Appellant argues "that Buchan, at no point, refers to the parallel plate
capacitor as being "conceptual." App. Br. 7. Instead, according to
Appellant, "paragraph [0120] and Fig. lOB of Buchan describe that the
circuit diagram 1055b represents capacitance changes caused by pressure or
force (i.e. actual contact) on a real parallel plate capacitor. Buchan describes
that upper electrodes 1015 and lower electrodes 1030a form two plates of a
deformable parallel plate capacitor." Id. Appellant further argues that
"[i]nterpreting an imaginary plane located above and parallel to a planar
surface of the touch panel as user's finger is an unreasonably broad
interpretation of the plain meaning of the claim language when read in light
of the specification." Id. at 9; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
4
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
Figures 3A and 3B of the Specification are reproduced below
FIG. 3A
z
t
L_y
Figures "3A and 3B are explanatory diagrams illustrating an exemplary
configuration achieved to detect capacitance values that are attained on an
imaginary plane, where 3A is a side view and 3B is a perspective view."
Spec. 3 :20-22. The Specification describes how the imaginary planes are at
specified distances above the surface in order to allow the angle of the finger
to be determined:
In the present disclosure, not only the capacitance values
that are obtained on the operation surface, but also the
capacitance values that are obtained on the imaginary planes
that are away from the operation surface by as much as the
specified distances are referenced, as described above, to
determine the angle of a finger touching the operation surface
5
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
and the direction thereof. That is, capacitance values are
scanned for each of plural layers (hereinafter referred to as
"layers") that are superimposed on one another in a Z-axis
direction (the normal direction) perpendicular to an operation
surface 7 s of the touch panel 7, and the angle of a finger
touching the operation surface and the direction thereof are
determined based on information about the capacitance values
that are obtained on each layer.
In Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B, an example where capacitance
values are scanned on the operation surface 7 s of the touch
panel and layer Lyl to Layer Ly3 that are away from the
operation surface 7 s in the Z-axis direction by as much as
specified distances, that is, four layers in total, is illustrated.
The operation surface 7 s is distant from, in increasing order of
distance, the layer Lyl, the layer Ly2, and the layer Ly3 in the
Z direction. The distance between the operation surface 7 s and
the layer Ly3 may be set to 10 mm, etc., for example.
Id. at 10:5-20. Although we do not read limitations from the Specification
into the claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we
interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). "[T]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation ... does not include giving claims a legally incorrect
interpretation" "divorced from the specification and the record evidence."
Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
( quoting In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and In re
NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), overruled on other
grounds by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Mata!, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
6
Appeal2017-005081
Application 13/904,742
Based on the current record, we are persuaded by Appellant that the
Examiner erred in finding Buchan teaches detecting capacitance values "on
an imaginary plane located above and parallel to a planar surface of the
touch panel" as recited in claim 1. Buchan's Figure lOB, cited by the
Examiner, is reproduced below.
1005 1010
~ .. ~
1015
1035 ·-~=~~~"==_.~