Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

13241034 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

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