Ex Parte Vandermeijden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13434608 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/434,608 03/29/2012
111408 7590 09/30/2016
Osha Liang LLP/Synaptics
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tom R. Vandermeijden
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.
380181109001 3551
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
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 R. V ANDERMEIJDEN and JEFFREY A. SMALL
Appeal 2015-0077 62
Application No. 13/434,608 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest is Synaptics, Inc.
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a capacitive input device that includes a
processing system, a plurality of sensing electrodes configured to sense
objects in a sensing region, a conductor, and a shield layer comprising at
least one shield electrode that is disposed between the plurality of sensing
electrodes and the conductor. In a first mode of operation, the processing
system determines position information for objects in the sensing region
using the plurality of sensing electrodes. In a second mode of operation, the
processing system electrically floats the at least one shield electrode and
determines force information for objects in the sensing region using the
plurality of sense electrodes. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A capacitive input device comprising:
a plurality of sensing electrodes configured to sense
objects in a sensing region;
a conductor;
a shield layer comprising at least one shield electrode, the
at least one shield electrode disposed between the plurality of
sensing electrodes and the conductor;
a processing system coupled to the plurality of sensing
electrodes and the at least one shield electrode, the processing
system configured to:
operate in a first mode, wherein when operating in the
first mode the processing system is configured to determine
position information for objects in the sensing region using the
plurality of sensing electrodes; and
operate in a second mode, wherein when operating in the
second mode the processing system is configured to electrically
float the at least one shield electrode and to determine force
information for objects in the sensing region using the plurality
of sensing electrodes.
2
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Reynolds
Coulson et al.
US 2011/0175671 Al July 21, 2011
US 2013/0033450 Al Feb. 7, 2013
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulson and Reynolds.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Jan. 5, 2015) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
June 4, 2015) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Coulson and Reynolds teach or
suggest operating in a second mode wherein the processing system is
configured to electrically float the at least one shield electrode and determine
force information for objects in the sensing region?
2. Does the combination of Coulson and Reynolds teach or
suggest a shield electrode disposed between the plurality of sensing
electrodes and the conductor?
3. Does Coulson's teaching of floating the shield electrode in both
the first and second modes constitute a teaching away from the invention
under appeal?
4. Does the combination of Coulson and Reynolds teach or
suggest selectively operating in a first mode in which the processing system
electrically drives the at least one shield electrode to an electrical potential,
and selectively operating in a second mode in which the processing system
electrically floats the at least one shield electrode?
3
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the
Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to
one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991 ). If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court
has held that "[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'!,
73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-8
Appellants argue that Coulson does not teach electrically driving the
shielding electrode in a first mode, and floating the shielding electrode in a
second mode. App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
because claim 1 recites only "wherein when operating in the first mode the
processing system is configured to determine position information for
objects in the sensing region using the plurality of sensing electrodes." We
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite "electrically driving the
shielding electrode." See Ans. 11.
4
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
Appellants further contend that in Coulson's "eleventh embodiment,"
in which Coulson teaches a floating shield electrode, Coulson teaches that
the shield layer is disconnected from the DC voltage source, and that
Coulson concludes that this "is undesirable in the second mode of operation,
as it prevents separation of force measurements from contact
measurements." App. Br. 16-1 7, citing Coulson i1 214.
Appellants' contention is not persuasive to show Examiner error,
because we agree with the Examiner that the subsequent paragraphs of
Coulson, not discussed by Appellants, explain how to remedy the potential
problem expressed at paragraph 214. See Ans. 9--10 and Coulson i1i1215-
218.
Appellants assert that Coulson teaches away from the use of a floating
shield layer as one of two operational modes, because in Coulson's eleventh
embodiment the shield layer is electrically floated in both the first and
second operational modes. App. Br. 17. Appellants' assertion fails to
establish that Coulson teaches away from the invention under appeal. There
is no requirement in the claims that the shield layer is electrically floated in
only one of the two modes. Ans. 11. Further, Appellants have not
demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would be discouraged from
following the path set out in Coulson, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken in the application under appeal. See
Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner concedes that Coulson
fails to teach a shield electrode disposed between the sensing electrodes and
the conductor, and Reynolds teaches a floating electrode having an aperture
configured to overlap a shield electrode formed between a transmitter and a
5
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
receiver electrode. App. Br. 17, citing Reynolds ilil 73, 76. While we may
agree with Appellants that the floating electrode in Reynolds is disposed
between a transmitter and receiver electrode, and cannot also be said to be
disposed between the sensing electrodes and the conductor (App. Br. 17), we
agree with the Examiner that Coulson nonetheless teaches this limitation.
See Ans. 12. Coulson teaches a typical implementation of a surface
capacitance type touch sensor: "[ w ]hen a conductive object, such as a
human finger 13, comes into close proximity to the sensing electrode, a
capacitor 14 is dynamically formed between the sensing electrode 11 and the
finger 13." Coulson i-f 3.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "conductor,"
we agree with the Examiner's finding that a user's finger corresponds to the
claimed conductor. As such, we find that Coulson's shield layer 620 is
disposed between the plurality of sensing electrodes ( 615, 61 O; 805, 810)
and the conductor/finger 835. Coulson Fig. 8; i-fi-1187, 188.
We find that the Examiner did not err in combining Coulson and
Reynolds to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 1-8. We sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
CLAIM9
Claim 9 differs from claim 1 in that in the first mode, the processing
system "electrically drives the at least one shield electrode to an electrical
potential." Appellants' argument that Coulson teaches floating the shield
electrode in both the first and second modes is therefore persuasive to
establish that the Examiner's combination of Coulson and Reynolds fails to
teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 9. See App. Br. 16. We do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
6
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
CLAIMS 10-15
Claim 10, like claim 9, recites that "while operating in the first mode,
the sensor module is configured to drive a plurality of sensing electrodes
configured to sense objects in a sensing region while driving a shield layer
to generate resulting signals of a first type." We agree with Appellants that
Coulson, which teaches floating the shield electrode in both the first and
second modes, fails to teach driving a shield layer while operating in the first
mode. See App. Br. 16. Because the Examiner's combination of Coulson
and Reynolds fails to teach all the limitations of claim 10, and claims 11-15
dependent therefrom, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection.
CLAIMS 16-20
Claim 16 recites a method for determining input information in a
sensing region of a capacitive input device. The claim includes the step of
"driving a plurality of sensing electrodes configured to sense objects in the
sensing region while driving a shield layer to generate resulting signals of a
first type." We agree with Appellants that Coulson, which teaches floating
the shield electrode in both the first and second modes, fails to teach driving
a shield layer while operating in the first mode. See App. Br. 16. Because
the Examiner's combination of Coulson and Reynolds fails to teach all the
limitations of claim 16, and claims 17-20 dependent therefrom, we do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Coulson and Reynolds teaches operating in
a second mode wherein the processing system is configured to electrically
7
Appeal2015-007762
Application No. 13/434,608
float the at least one shield electrode and determine force information for
objects in the sensing region.
2. The combination of Coulson and Reynolds teaches a shield
electrode disposed between the plurality of sensing electrodes and the
conductor.
3. Coulson' s teaching of floating the shield electrode in both the
first and second modes does not constitute a teaching away from the
invention under appeal.
4. The combination of Coulson and Reynolds does not teach or
suggest selectively operating in a first mode in which the processing system
electrically drives the at least one shield electrode to an electrical potential,
and selectively operating in a second mode in which the processing system
electrically floats the at least one shield electrode.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 is affirmed. The
Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-20 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
8