Ex Parte Worfolk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

14033151 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 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.
14/033,151 09/20/2013 Patrick Worfolk 38018/174001 7380
111408 7590
FBFK/Synaptics
Robert Lord
9 Greenway Plaza
Suite 500
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, JIMMY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
rlord@fbfk.law
jhathaway @ fbfk. law
docketing @ fbfk. law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK WORFOLK and PASCALE EL KALLAS SI
Appeal 2017-0084271
Application 14/033,151
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—4, 11—13, and 16—18. Claims 5—10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 have been
withdrawn from consideration. (See Pre-Appeal Br. Conf. Dec.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Synaptics Inc. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to operating an input device for an
electronic system, having a pliable component with an input surface and
sensor electrodes, and a support substrate having a second sensor electrode
spaced apart from the pliable component, and a patterned force sensitive
resistance (FSR) layer disposed between the first sensor electrodes and the
second sensor electrode. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An input device for an electronic system, comprising:
a pliable component having:
an input surface;
a plurality of sensor electrodes configured to sense input objects
in a sensing region of the input device;
a support substrate including at least one force sensor electrode
spaced apart from the pliable component; and
a patterned force sensitive resistance (FSR) layer disposed
between the plurality of sensor electrodes and the at least one force
sensor electrode,
wherein the patterned FSR layer comprises an FSR material
disposed between a first rigid spacer element and a second rigid
spacer element, and
wherein the first rigid spacer element and the second rigid
spacer element define a force pixel among a plurality of force pixels
for the at least one force sensor electrode.
Claims 1—4, 11—13, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
2
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
Claims 1,2, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oda (US 2011/0234508 Al; Sept. 29, 2011) and
Day (US 2010/0253651 Al; Oct. 7, 2010).
Claims 3, 4, 11—13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Oda, Day, and Maruyama (US 2011/0248728 Al;
Oct. 13, 2011).2
ANALYSIS
§ 112(a) Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 7—10) that the
limitation “wherein the first rigid spacer element and the second rigid spacer
element define a force pixel among a plurality of force pixels for the at least
one force sensor electrode,” as recited in independent claim 1, complies with
the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The Examiner found that the disputed limitation is unsupported by
Appellants’ Specification. (Final Act. 3.) In particular, the Examiner found
that “Paragraph 59 of the original specification, discusses ‘. . . space
dots 912 interposed between respective FSR [force sensitive resistance]
resistors’” and “[a]s such, the specification does not discuss the spacer dots
being used to define force pixels.” (Id.) Moreover, the Examiner found that
“the specification never defines or describes what is considered to be a FSR
resistor” and “figure 9 does not explicitly illustrate the space dots being
2 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 3, 4, 11—13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived and we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
3
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
interposed between respective FSR resistors.” (Id. at 4.) We do not agree
with the Examiner.
Appellants’ originally-filed Specification discloses that “[u]ser
interface functionality may be enhanced by employing resistive force
sensors embodying force sensitive resistive (FSR) or piezo-resistive
materials, of which there are two general varieties: surface effect and bulk
effect” and “/b]oth exhibit decreased resistance (higher conductivity) with
increasing applied force.” (Spec. 117.) With respect to Appellants’
Figure 5, the Specification discloses “a patterned force sensitive resistance
(FSR) layer 516 (e.g., FSR ink), and an optional array of spacer dots 518
interposed between respective FSR resistors.” (Spec. 151.) Moreover, the
Specification discloses that “force receiver electrode layer 514 are
configured to form a plurality (e.g., an array) of force pixels (or ‘fixels’)
530” and “[t]he force sensing mechanism of a fixel 530 is schematically
illustrated in an exploded view 532, which depicts a force transmitter
electrode 522, a force receiver electrode 520, and an FSR material 526 in an
air gap 509 between the electrodes.” (Spec. 1 53.) Because force pixel 530
or “fixel” 530 is disclosed as a single pixel, Figure 5 illustrates that spacer
dots 518 are disposed such that they surround such fixel 530, and paragraph
51 discloses that an “array of spacer dots 518 [is] interposed between
respective FSR resistors,” Appellants’ Specification adequately supports the
claim limitation “wherein the first rigid spacer element and the second rigid
spacer element define a force pixel among a plurality of force pixels for the
at least one force sensor electrode.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “[w]ith
reference to FIG. 5 ... the originally-filed Specification discloses that
4
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
reference element 530 illustrates an array of force pixels or ‘fixels’” and “the
originally-filed Specification also discloses that reference element 518
illustrates an array of spacer dots interposed between respective FSR
resistors, for example, such as in the case of FSR material 526 located in the
exploded view 532 of a force pixel or fixel.” (Br. 8 (emphases omitted).)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the Specification fails to
provide written description support for the limitation “wherein the first rigid
spacer element and the second rigid spacer element define a force pixel
among a plurality of force pixels for the at least one force sensor electrode.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Claims 2-4 and 11—13 depend from claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—A and 11—13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claim 16 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. Claims 17 and 18 depend from
claim 16. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
§ 112(b) Rejection
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 15) that dependent
claim 3 is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The Examiner found that “[cjlaim 3 recites ‘the at least one second
force electrode’ which lacks antecedent basis in the claims and thus leaves
5
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
unclear which electrode is being referred to.” (Final Act. 4.) We agree with
the Examiner.
Independent claim 1 recites “a support substrate including at least one
force sensor electrode spaced apart from the pliable component” (emphasis
added.) Dependent claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the
at least one second force electrode is configured to measure a force applied
to the input surf ace” (emphasis added). Thus, claim 3 recites “at least one
second force electrode,” rather than “at least one force sensor electrode,” as
recited in claim 1. Because claim 3 recites “at least one second force
electrode,” and claim 1 recites different language, claim 1 provides no
earlier recitation of “at least one second force electrode” and accordingly,
the claim is unclear as to what element “at least one second force electrode”
refers.
Appellants argue that “a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of
the originally filed Specification would possess reasonable certainty that ‘the
at least one second force electrode’ corresponds to ‘at least one force sensor
electrode’ as recited in independent claim.” (Br. 15 (emphases omitted).)
However, Appellants’ argument is merely a conclusory statement, which
does not adequately rebut the Examiner’s finding that the recitation of “at
least one second force electrode” in claim 3 lacks an antecedent basis.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ H2(b).
§103 Rejection
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 12—13) that the
combination of Oda and Day would not have rendered obvious independent
6
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
claim 1, which includes the limitations “at least one force sensor electrode”
and “a patterned force sensitive resistance (FSR) layer disposed between the
plurality of sensor electrodes and the at least one force sensor electrode.”
The Examiner found that transmission conductors 11Y of Oda, as
illustrated in Figure 3, correspond to the limitation “at least one force sensor
electrode.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5.) The Examiner further found that
the first resistive element 13Y of Oda, as illustrated in Figure 3, corresponds
to the limitation “a patterned force sensitive resistance (FSR) layer disposed
between the plurality of sensor electrodes and the at least one force sensor
electrode.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner.
Oda relates a pointer detection apparatus “which is capable of
detecting a pointed position and a pressure applied by a pointer on a
detection sensor.” (Abstract.) In particular, Oda explains that
[w]hen a pointer is positioned in the proximity of . . . the
detection sensor or when a pressure applied to the detection
sensor by the pointer in contact with the detection sensor is equal
to or lower than a threshold, detection signals corresponding to
variation in electrostatic capacity between the first and second
conductors are supplied.
(Id.) Figure 3 of Oda, a cross-sectional view of sensor section 100, is
reproduced below:
7
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
Figure 3 of Oda illustrates that sensor section 100 includes lower side
substrate 16, upper side substrate 17 (1 111), transmission conductors 11Y,
reception conductors 12X (| 112), first resistive elements 13Y, and second
resistive elements 14X (| 113). Oda further explains that “the pressure
sensitive member is configured from a first resistive element and a second
resistive element” and “as shown in FIG. 2, first resistive elements
(hereinafter referred to as transmission resistive elements) 13 Y are formed in
a laminated relationship on the transmission conductors 11Y on the lower
side substrate 16.” {Id. (emphases omitted).) Because Oda explains that a
pressure sensitive member is configured from first resistive element 13Y,
Oda teaches the limitation “at least one force sensor electrode.” Moreover,
because Figure 2 of Oda illustrates that first resistive elements 13 Y is
between reception conductors 12X and transmission conductors 11Y, Oda
teaches the limitation “a patterned force sensitive resistance (FSR) layer
disposed between the plurality of sensor electrodes and the at least one force
sensor electrode.”
Appellants argue that “Oda fails to disclose one set of sensor
electrodes for sensing input objects in a sensing region and a different set of
sensor electrodes for force sensing.” (Br. 12 (emphases omitted).)
Similarly, Appellants argue that “Oda is merely directed to using the
transmission conductors 11Y and reception conductors 12X for mere
position detection, and not force sensing with a plurality of force pixels, as
recited in independent claim 1.” {Id. at 13.) However, Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because, as the
Examiner notes {see Ans. 5), the claim does not recite “force sensing.” As
discussed previously, because Oda explains that a pressure sensitive member
8
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
is configured from first resistive element 13Y, Oda teaches the limitation “at
least one force sensor electrode.”
Appellants further argue that “Oda also fails to disclose a patterned
FSR layer disposed between the set of sensor electrodes for sensing input
objects and the force sensor electrode, as is clearly recited in independent
claim 1.” (Br. 12 (emphases omitted).) However, Appellants merely
provide a conclusory statement that Oda does not teach the disputed
limitation, without any persuasive arguments as to why the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Oda are improper. Moreover, as discussed
previously, Figure 2 of Oda illustrates that first resistive elements 13Y is
between reception conductors 12X and transmission conductors 11Y and
therefore, teaches the limitation “a patterned force sensitive resistance (FSR)
layer disposed between the plurality of sensor electrodes and the at least one
force sensor electrode.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Oda and
Day would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations “at least one force sensor electrode” and “a patterned force
sensitive resistance (FSR) layer disposed between the plurality of sensor
electrodes and the at least one force sensor electrode.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13—14) that
the Examiner improperly combined Oda and Day.
The Examiner found that the spacer member of Oda for maintaining
the air gap, corresponds to the limitation “spacer element.” (Final Act. 6.)
The Examiner further found that the spacer elements of Day, having a rigid
structure, correspond to the claimed “rigid spacer element.” (Id.) The
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious ... to modify Oda
9
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
with Day such that Day’s well known technique of maintaining] space
between substrates is applied to Day’s device.” (Id.) The Examiner,
therefore, has articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for
combining the references. We agree with the Examiner.
Oda explains that “a spacer member for maintaining the air gap 15 is
provided between the lower side substrate 16 and the upper side substrate 17
at peripheral edge portions of the sensor section 100.” (1115.) Thus, Oda
teaches the limitation “spacer element.”
Day relates to electronic devices, in particular, “input devices, such as
proximity sensor devices.” (12.) Day explains that “[a] measure of the
transcapacitance may be used to determine positional information for the
input objects in the sensing region” and “[t]he deflectable electrode is
configured to be deflectable toward the set of sensor electrodes, where the
deflection causes a change in the transcapacitance.” (Abstract.) Day further
explains that “an increase in applied pressure or force deflects the
deflectable electrode closer to the transmitting and receiving electrodes,
further intercepting the electric field between the transmitting and receiving
electrodes, and thus further decreasing the measured transcapacitance.”
(146.) Figure 5 of Day illustrates a cross-sectional view of input device
500, which includes “[a] deformable layer 508 . . . located between the
deflectable electrode layer 506 and the sensor electrodes [504]” and “[a] set
of spacer elements 516 .. . formed between the deformable layer 508 and the
sensor electrodes [504].” (| 77.) Day explains that “the spacer elements
516 comprise relatively rigid structures laid out in a regular pattern.” (| 80.)
Thus, Day teaches the limitation “rigid spacer element.”
10
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
The combination of Oda and Day is nothing more than incorporating
the known rigid spacer element of Day for proximity sensor devices, with
the known pointer detection apparatus of Oda, having a spacer element to
maintain an air gap, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 6) that modifying Oda to include the rigid spacer of Day would
have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “Day discloses an input device where ‘an
increase in applied pressure or force deflects the deflectable electrode closer
to the transmitting and receiving electrodes, further intercepting the electric
field between the transmitting and receiving electrodes, and thus further
decreasing the measured transcapacitance and accordingly, Day teaches
away from the claimed invention “by focusing on using capacitance to
determine force, Day effectively criticizes, discredits, and discourages any
measuring of force using a patterned force sensitive resistance layer.”
(Br. 14 (emphases omitted).) However, other than providing a conclusory
statement that Day teaches away from the claimed invention, Appellants do
not provide any persuasive arguments as to how Day criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages the claimed “rigid spacer element.” See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, contrary to Appellants’
argument that “focusing on using capacitance to determine force” is a
teaching away (Br. 14), Day is describing the principle of operation for a
proximity sensor devices because Day further explains that “[a] measure of
11
Appeal 2017-008427
Application 14/033,151
the transcapacitance may be used to determine positional information for the
input objects in the sensing region” (Abstract).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has improperly
combined Oda and Day to reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 16 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 16, as well as dependent claim 17, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4, 11—13, and 16—18 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12