Hristov, Luben et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019003760 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
15/040,889 02/10/2016 Luben Hristov 080900.2836 8258
145922 7590 12/16/2020
TRASKBRITT, P.C./Microchip Technology Incorporated
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, GERALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUBEN HRISTOV, SAMUEL BRUNET, RICHARD COLLINS,
and STEPHAN THALER
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Atmel Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a touch object detection for touch sensors.
See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and
claimed invention relate to “techniques to identify the source of a touch
object using one or more injected signals.” Spec. ¶ 13.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A system comprising:
a touch sensor comprising a plurality of electrodes
distributed across an area of the touch sensor;
a source electrode embedded in a chair, the source
electrode connectable to a signal source, the source electrode
positioned to inject one or more signals generated by the signal
source through an occupant of the chair to one or more of the
electrodes of the touch sensor when the occupant of the chair is
electrically coupled to the area of the touch sensor; and
a touch controller configured to:
detect a position of a touch object within the area
of the touch sensor during a period of time when an
injected signal generated by the signal source is present
on one or more of the plurality of electrodes; and
determine whether the touch object is associated
with the occupant of the chair based at least in part on a
proximity of the injected signal present on one or more of

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Oct. 15, 2018); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 11, 2019); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 11, 2019); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Apr. 19, 2018); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Feb. 10, 2016).
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

3
the plurality of electrodes to the detected position of the
touch object.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Hristov et al. ("Hristov") US 2013/0057503 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
Olson et al. ("Olson") US 2015/0199046 A1 July 16, 2015
REJECTIONS
R1. Claims 1–4, 9–14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hristov. Final Act. 3.
R2. Claims 5–8, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hristov and Olson. Final Act. 9.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 21–22) and our
discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of
anticipation Rejection R1 of claims 1–4, 9–14, 19, and 20 on the basis of
representative claim 1. Remaining claims 5–8, and 15–18 in Rejection R2,
not argued separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim
from which they depend.3

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

4
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and 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 and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
1. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) Rejection R1 of Claims 1–4, 9–14, 19, 20
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 2–6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Hristov is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior discloses a system that
includes the limitation of “a touch controller configured to,” inter alia,
“detect a position of a touch object within the area of the touch sensor during

dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

5
a period of time when an injected signal generated by the signal source is
present on one or more of the plurality of electrodes,” as recited in claim 1?
Principles of Law
Anticipation of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 occurs when each
claimed element and the claimed arrangement or combination of those
elements is disclosed, inherently or expressly, by a single prior art reference.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2010). A reference inherently discloses an element of a claim “if that
missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single
anticipating reference.” Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373,
1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Therasense, 593 F.3d at 1332 (citing Cont’l Can Co. USA, Inc.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Analysis
Appellant generally alleges claim 1 is allowable because Hristov does
not disclose the contested limitation identified above, and further argues
“Hristov discloses two distinct modes of operation: a ‘position-detection
mode of operation,’ [0005], and an ‘object-identification mode of operation,’
[0006].” Appeal Br 21. More specifically, Appellant contends:
During the object-identification mode of operation, a “signal
source 33 provides a signal . . . to source electrode 38,” which
may “induce a charge through touch object 26 that is sensed by
an electrode 22.” [0023]
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

6
As explained above, the position of the touch object is
determined when the sensor is in “position-detection mode,”
not in “object-identification mode. And the signal source 33
provides a signal that induces a charge sensed by electrode 22
when the sensor is in "object-identification mode,” not in
“position-detection mode.”
Id.
Appellant reiterates “the rejections rely on activities of Hristov that
occur during its self-named ‘position-detection mode’ when the injected
signal of Hristov is not disclosed by Hristov to be present. Rather Hristov
only discloses such a signal is present during the self-named ‘object-
identification’ mode of Hristov.” Reply Br. 3.
Notwithstanding Appellant’s argument centered on paragraph 23 of
Hristov, the Examiner relies, in part, upon Hristov paragraph 21 as
disclosing the contested limitation. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4. Hristov
discloses, in pertinent part:
In certain embodiments, touch sensor may determine the
touch position at least in part by using controller 12 to apply a
pulsed or alternating voltage to electrode 22a, which may
induce a charge on electrode 22b.
Hristov ¶ 21.
We find this quotation from Hristov directly contradicts Appellant’s
repeated argument cited above that Hristov is deficient. Instead, and in
agreement with the Examiner, we find Hristov paragraph 21 discloses
determining a touch position when a signal is provided, i.e., Hristov
discloses the claimed “a touch controller configured to . . . detect a position
of a touch object within the area of the touch sensor during a period of time
Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

7
when an injected signal generated by the signal source is present on one or
more of the plurality of electrodes,” as recited in claim 1.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art to disclose the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner’s
resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2–4, 9–14,
19, and 20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
4. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 5–8, and 15–18
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 5–8, and 15–18 under § 103 (see
Appeal Br. 21), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Arguments not made are forfeited.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.

Appeal 2019-003760
Application 15/040,889

8
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
R1 of claims 1–4, 9–14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and
102(a)(2), and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejection
R2 of claims 5–8, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 9–14,
19, 20
102(a)(1)/
102(a)(2)
Anticipation
Hristov
1–4, 9–14,
19, 20
5–8, 15–18 103
Obviousness
Hristov,
Olson
5–8, 15–18
Overall
Outcome 1–20
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). 2 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED