Ex Parte Trend et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12534748 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/534,748 08/03/2009
12323 7590 10/03/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Trend
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.
080900.0151 1174
EXAMINER
MANDEVILLE, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW TREND, SAMUEL BRUNET, and
ESATYILMAZ
Appeal2015-002180
Application 12/534,748
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-31. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a device including "a plurality of
drive electrodes and a plurality of sense electrodes" in which "[t]he sense
Appeal2015-002180
Application 12/534,748
electrodes have multiple projections interleaved with the multiple
projections of the drive electrodes." Abstract.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A device comprising:
a plurality of drive electrodes extending generally along a
first axis, a first drive electrode comprising:
a plurality of first portions connected by a plurality
of second portions; and
a first plurality of projections extending from the
plurality of first portions; and
a plurality of receive electrodes extending generally
along a second axis transverse to the first axis, a first receive
electrode comprising a second plurality of projections
interleaved in plan view with the first plurality of projections.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over l\1ulligan (US 6,970, 160 B2; November 29, 2005) in viev,r
of Gray (US 8,159,467 B2; April 17, 2012). Final Rejection 2.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed February 26, 2014), the Appeal Brief
(filed July 24, 2014), the Answer (mailed September 30, 2014), and the
Reply Brief (filed December 1, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own ( 1) the
2
Appeal2015-002180
Application 12/534,748
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-31
Appellants argue Examiner error because Gray's "projections allow
adjacent rows of like or 'complementary' conductors to be interleaved" and
"there is no disclosure of interleaving a projection of a row electrode with a
projection of a column electrode." Appeal Brief 10. Particularly,
Appellants contend the modification of Mulligan with Gray:
would result in the conducting elements 503 in the first layer 501
(which the Final Office Action equates to the drive electrodes)
having protrusions/extensions into adjacent rows, and
conducting elements 503 in the second layer 502 (which the
Final Office Action equates to the sense electrodes) having
protrt1sions/extensions into adjacent columns.
Appeal Brief 10-11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "[i]t is a goal of Gray to provide an improved interleaving
of drive and sense electrodes to produce a smooth, linear transition of the
energy of a user's touch to a touchscreen and to produce a uniform output."
Final Rejection 4, citing Gray 4:61-5:24. Indeed, Gray discloses that "a
significant meshing and interlacing of conductors may be made ... across
the first and second conductors that are arranged in the first and second
directions." Gray 4:67-5:6. Appellants' argument based on the electrode
arrangement illustrated in Figure 13 of Gray is unpersuasive as it ignores the
3
Appeal2015-002180
Application 12/534,748
broader teachings of Gray regarding the benefits of interleaving electrodes;
"[O]bviousness does not require the prior art to reach expressly each
limitation exactly. Rather, obviousness may render a claimed invention
invalid where the record contains a suggestion or motivation to modify the
prior art teaching to obtain the claimed invention." Beckson Marine, Inc. v.
NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 11, 17, and 26
commensurate in scope, and claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-25, and 27-31 not
separately argued. See Appeal Brief 11.
Rejection of Claim 4
Claim 4 includes the limitation "wherein the first receive electrode
comprises a plurality of cross bars extending generally along the first axis, a
first cross bar having at least one projection extending from the cross bar."
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the Examiner identifies the
"first axis" of claim 1 as encompassing a "horizontal axis" (see Final
Rejection 2) whereas the Examiner "identifies 'vertical extensions (504)' of
Mulligan as allegedly corresponding to the claimed 'cross bars.'" Appeal
Brief 11-12. Appellants contend that Mulligan's vertical extensions extend
vertically and thus do not "extend[] generally along the first axis" as
required by the claim.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that "[t]he 'cross bars' (504) are shown to be two-dimensional structures
and, as such, are plainly shown to extend 'generally' along the first
horizontal axis and the second vertical axis." Answer 10. We agree with the
4
Appeal2015-002180
Application 12/534,748
Examiner that Mulligan broadly but reasonably discloses the claimed
limitation, as the rectangular shape of Mulligan's vertical extensions are not
precluded from "extending generally" along a horizontal axis, which is all
the claim requires. We additionally agree with the Examiner that "[t]here is
nothing in the claims to define the manner in which the [claimed]
'projection' extends from the 'cross bar"' (Answer 11) for the same reasons.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-31.
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
5