Ex Parte Zheng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 2, 201613241034 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/241,034 09/22/2011 65015 7590 05/04/2016 Treyz Law Group 870 Market Street, Suite 984 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dong Zheng 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. Pl 1627US1 9999 EXAMINER LIN, HANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2016 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): docket@treyzlawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONG ZHENG and BRIAN R. LAND Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-19 and 21, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' present application relates to using ambient light sensors to control the brightness of an electronic device's touch screen display. Abstract. Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 9. A method of operating an electronic device with a touch sensor, a display having an adjustable brightness, a primary ambient light sensor, and at least one secondary ambient light sensor, the method comprising: with control circuitry in the electronic device, selecting between data from the primary ambient light sensor and data from the secondary ambient light sensor in adjusting the brightness of the display; and using data from the touch sensor, determining that the secondary ambient light sensor is shadowed, wherein the display comprises an active region within which display pixels display images and an inactive region at least partially surrounding the active region and wherein the secondary ambient light sensor is mounted in the inactive region of the display. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 9-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hotelling (US 2005/0051708 Al; Mar. 10, 2005), Chen (US 2009/0174647 Al; July 9, 2009), Dalgleish (US 2005/0203697 Al; Sept. 15, 2005), Young (US 2009/085485 Al; Apr. 2, 2009), and Han (US 2010/0177060 Al; July 15, 2010). See Final Act. 2-11. 2 Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 Claim 16-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hotelling, Katoh (US 2010/0127280 Al; May 27, 2010), Young, and Han. See Final Act. 11-17. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the 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. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the cited combination does not teach or suggest "using data from the touch sensor, determining that the secondar; ambient light sensor is shadowed" where "the secondary ambient light sensor is mounted in the inactive region of the display." See Br. 8-10. In particular, Appellants argue that adding Han's touch-sensitive display elements (the claimed "touch sensor") to Chen's photo-sensing devices (the claimed "secondary ambient light sensors") would result in the photo-sensing devices located in an active region of the display instead of an inactive region, as required by the claims. Br. 9. Appellants argue neither Han nor any of the other cited references teach touch sensors located in the inactive region of the display. Id. Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the location of the touch sensor does not define whether a 3 Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 region is active or inactive. Instead, claim 9 recites the active region is the region "within which display pixels display images" while the inactive region "at least partially surround[ s] the active region." Accordingly, Claim 9 does not require the touch sensor to be located in the active region of the display. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chen teaches a display that defines an active region with a pixel area (a region "within which display pixels display images") and an inactive region containing secondary ambient light sensors. Ans. 7 (citing Chen Fig. lB, i-f 22). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Han teaches a photosensitive light emitting/sensing layer 120 and a touch sensing capacitive layer 110. Ans. 8 (citing Han Fig. 8, ,-r,-r 65, 124). The artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would add Han's touch sensing capacitive layer 110 to Chen's inactive region to detect whether the secondary ambient light sensors are shadowed without incorporating display pixels into Chen's inactive region. See id. This combination would detect whether the claimed secondary ambient light sensors are shadowed without changing the inactive region to an active region, as Appellants argue. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the proposed combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Appellants further argue combining Han with the other references would render Han inoperable for its intended purpose because the 4 Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 combination could not include a light emitting layer in the inactive region. See Br. 10. However, as noted above, an ordinarily skilled artisan would incorporate Han's touch sensing elements into Chen's inactive region to detect whether an ambient light sensor is shadowed without changing Chen's inactive region to an active region. Ans. 8. This is precisely the purpose of Han's touch sensing elements. Ans. 8 (citing Han Fig. 8, i-f 124). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the proposed combination would render Han inoperable for its intended purpose. Appellants further argue Han teaches away from the proposed combination because Han teaches using data from the shadowed light sensor to identify that the sensor is shadowed, while the base combination teaches discarding data from any light sensor determined to be shadowed. See Br. 11-13. Young, one of the references in the base combination, teaches determining whether an ambient light sensor is shadowed using data from a plurality of ambient light sensors. i\.ns. 7 (citing Young i-f 22). Han teaches using touch sensors to detect that an ambient light sensor is shadowed, as discussed above. Han also teaches touch sensors may be used in combination with data from light sensors to detect whether a light sensor is shadowed. See Han i-f 123 ("In some implementations, step 420 can also include determination of the position of the input mechanism based-at least in part--on ambient light detected by light detecting elements in layer 120, as discussed previously."). We are not persuaded that Han teaches away from the proposed combination because Han teaches that its touch sensor may be used with light sensing elements, such as those taught by the base combination. Han teaches that a shadowed sensor is identified to compensate for the shadowing by intensifying the light in the shadowed area 5 Appeal2014-008994 Application 13/241,034 (Han i-f 124), but, as proposed by the Examiner, Han's teachings can also be applied to the base combination, which identifies a shadowed sensor in order to disregard data from the sensor (Young i-f 22). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in concluding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Han with the other cited references. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as unpatentable over Hotelling, Chen, Dalgleish, Young, and Han. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 9. Appellants argue the patentability of claims 14 and 16 based on the same reasons presented for claim 9. See Br. 13-15. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 16. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10-13, 15, 17-19, and 21, \vhich were not argued separately from their respective independent claims. See id. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-19 and 21. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation