Ex Parte Vandermeijden

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

13101915 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

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.
13/101,915 05/05/2011 Tom Vandermeijden 38018/185001 5972
111408 7590 01/23/2018
Osiha T iana T T P/S»vnar>tirs;
EXAMINER
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77010
SUGLO, JANET L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
hathaway@oshaliang.com
docketing@oshaliang.com
lord@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM VANDERMEIJDEN
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
rejection of claims 1—8, 11—14, and 16—23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant’s claimed invention “generally relates to electronic
devices” (Spec. 11). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A processing system for use with a capacitive input
device of the type having a plurality of capacitive sensor
electrodes and configured to sense in a sensing region, the
processing system comprising:
sensor electrode circuitry configured to operate the
plurality of capacitive sensor electrodes to produce pluralities of
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
preliminary values, each preliminary value corresponding to an
individual measured capacitance associated with a
corresponding capacitive pixel and obtained using a sensor
electrode of the plurality of sensor electrodes; and
a determination module configured to determine
information about input in the sensing region based on
comparisons of the pluralities of preliminary values with
corresponding baseline values of a plurality of baseline values,
wherein the determination module is configured to selectively
operate in a first mode and a second mode such that:
while operating in the first mode, the determination
module individually compares a baseline value of the plurality
of baseline values with a corresponding preliminary value of
the plurality of preliminary values, and selectively changes the
baseline value by a first amount when the baseline value is
different from the corresponding preliminary value, wherein, in
the first mode, the selectively changing the baseline value is
performed even when the processing system determines that an
input object is in the sensing region; and
while operating in the second mode, the determination
module does not selectively change the baseline value by the
first amount when the baseline value and the corresponding
preliminary value are different and when the processing system
determines that an input object is in the sensing region,
wherein the determination module is configured to switch
from operating in the first mode to operating in the second
mode in response to one of an external signal and a
determination that no input objects are in the sensing region.
The Reference
Westerman US 2008/0158182 A1 July 3,2008
The Rejections
Claims 1—8, 11—14, and 16—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter, and under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Westerman.
2
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
OPINION
We affirm the rejection under 35U.S.C. § 101 and reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
The Appellant argues the claims as a group (App. Br. 8—12). We
therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court stated in
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) that “[t]he Court’s precedents
provide three specific exceptions to § 101 ’s broad patent-eligibility
principles: Taws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.’
[Diamond v.] Chakrabarty, [447 U.S. 303,] 309, 100 S. Ct. 2204 [(1980)].”
The Court further stated that limiting an abstract idea to a particular
technological environment does not make the concept patentable. See Bilski,
561 U.S. at 610-611. Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-
eligible subject matter requires determining whether the claim is directed
toward a patent-ineligible concept and, if so, determining whether the
claim’s elements, considered both individually and as an ordered
combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014).1
1 The Appellant states that “[i]t is uncontroversial that all claims satisfy
Step 1 of the analysis set forth in Alice Corp” (App. Br. 8). In view of the
3
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
The Appellant’s claim 1 is directed toward a patent-ineligible concept,
i.e., the abstract idea of comparing a preliminary value with a baseline value,
in a first mode selectively changing the baseline value when the baseline
value and the corresponding preliminary value differ, even when an input
object has been determined to be in a sensing region, and in a second mode
not selectively changing the baseline value when the baseline value and the
corresponding preliminary value differ and an input object has been
determined to be in the sensing region. The claimed processing system is
limited to being for use with a capacitive input device having sensor
electrodes which sense in a sensing region, but “the prohibition against
patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
use of [the idea] to a particular technological environment.” Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610) (internal quotation marks
omitted); See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 596 (1978) (“‘[I]f a claim
is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical
formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is
nonstatutory. ”’) (quoting In re Rickman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (C.C.P.A.
1977)). The claim requires input of capacitive sensor electrode data
including preliminary values and either an external signal or a determination
that no input objects are in the sensing region, but “mere ‘[data-gathering]
step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370
Appellant’s misstatement of the two-step Alice test as “[i]n the first step, a
determination is made whether the claims are directed to a statutory class.
In the second step and first part (Step 2A), a determination is made whether
the claimed subject matter is directed towards an abstract idea” {id.), the
meaning of that statement is unclear.
4
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Thus, claim 1 ’s elements, both individually and as an ordered combination,
do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
The Appellant asserts that “the claimed invention allows for better
detection of input objects by an input device” (App. Br. 10), “the claims of
the present application entails [sic] an unconventional technical solution to a
technical problem (i.e., baseline management in order to properly detect
input objects)” (Reply Br. 6), “the additional steps of the claimed invention
tie the mathematical operation to the device’s ability to detect input objects
according to a correct baseline” (App. Br. 11), and “claim 1 recites specific
means for when and how to update a baseline that is used to detect input”
(Reply Br. 7).
The Appellant’s claim 1 does not require proper or better detection of
input objects. Nor does it require detecting objects according to a corrected
baseline. The claim merely requires the abstract idea of a determination
module (the argued specific means) which, based upon data gathered from
sensor electrode circuitry, changes a baseline value in a first mode, does not
change the baseline value in a second mode, and switches from the first
mode to the second mode. The claim lacks a limitation that transforms its
nature into a patent-eligible application.
Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection under
35U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be
disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior
5
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868
F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We need address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1,11
and 16. Claim 1 requires that “the determination module individually
compares a baseline value of the plurality of baseline values with a
corresponding preliminary value of the plurality of preliminary values.”
Claim 11 requires that “the processing system individually compares a
baseline value of the plurality of baseline values with a corresponding
preliminary value of the plurality of preliminary values.” Claim 16 requires
“individually comparing a baseline value of the plurality of baseline values
with a corresponding preliminary value of the plurality of preliminary
values.”
The Examiner finds that Westerman, in paragraphs 69 and 75,
“individually compares a baseline value of the plurality of baseline values
with a corresponding preliminary value of the plurality of preliminary
values” (Final Act. 4—5).
Westerman discloses in paragraph 69 a global baseline inversion
detection algorithm wherein one or more image scans of an entire sensor
panel is/are performed, a normalized baseline is captured, the sensor output
values above the normalized baseline value are summed, the sensor output
values below the normalized baseline value are summed, and the baseline is
recaptured only when the magnitude of the summed below normalized
baseline values is much greater than the magnitude of the summed above
normalized baseline values for several consecutive image scanning frames.
In paragraph 75, Westerman performs a periodic baseline adjustment by
scanning a sensor panel after a dynamic adjustment time interval,
6
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
normalizing the sensor output values by subtracting previously computed
offset values from them, incrementing positive normalized sensor values and
decrementing negative normalized sensor values, and waiting the duration of
the adjustment period before again scanning the sensor panel.
The Examiner does not explain how those portions of Westerman
disclose individually comparing a baseline value of a plurality of baseline
values with a corresponding preliminary value of a plurality of preliminary
values.
The Examiner finds that “[t]he aggregated number of sensor output
values of Westerman (see Westerman Figure 2a) are individual preliminary
values within the image in the same manner as shown in Figures 2A-2C of
the instant application. The baseline value is changed based on the result of
the comparison to ensure accurate determination of touch sensor output as
the goal of both Westerman and the instant application” (Ans. 6—7).
The Examiner does not explain how comparison of the capacitive
multi-touch panel in Westerman’s Figure 2a and the capacitive sensor
electrodes and resulting capacitive images in the Appellant’s Figures 2A-C
indicates that Westerman individually compares a baseline value of a
plurality of baseline values with a corresponding preliminary value of a
plurality of preliminary values.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1—8, 11—14, and 16—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter is affirmed. The rejection of
7
Appeal 2017-004199
Application 13/101,915
claims 1—8, 11—14, and 16—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Westerman is
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision 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).
AFFIRMED
8