Nihat BayramogluDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 1, 20212019006501 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/588,354 12/31/2014 Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu GBNDB002 1711 98346 7590 01/01/2021 Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC 1540 West Warm Springs Road Suite 100 Henderson, NV 89014 EXAMINER SHAH, PRIYANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/01/2021 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): gokalp@bayramoglu-legal.com in@bayramoglu-legal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NIHAT DENIZ BAYRAMOGLU Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–14, and 16–26. See Final Act. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed December 31, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed March 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed May 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 25, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed November 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 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 Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 2 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A hearing was held on December 15, 2020, and a transcript will be made of record. We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a touch detection panel that uses capacitance changes between electrodes and changes thereof to determine a position of touch.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A touch panel comprising: a substrate; a plurality of first conductive assemblies placed on a surface of the substrate in a first direction; a plurality of second conductive assemblies placed on the surface of the substrate in a second direction; wherein the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction; wherein each first conductive assembly comprises a plurality of first conductive electrodes and a plurality of first conductive lines connecting the plurality of first conductive electrodes; wherein each second conductive assembly comprises a plurality of second conductive electrodes and a plurality of second conductive lines connecting the plurality of second conductive electrodes; a plurality of insulators placed between the plurality of first conductive lines and plurality of second conductive lines; wherein a controller applies an alternating current at a predetermined frequency to the plurality of second conductive assemblies or to the plurality of first conductive assemblies; wherein the touch panel is modeled as a band pass filter, and the frequency of the alternating current is determined based on filter characteristics of the band pass filter; wherein the controller senses the current from the plurality of first conductive assemblies if the current is applied to the plurality of second conductive assemblies; Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 3 wherein the controller senses the current from the plurality of second conductive assemblies if the current is applied to the plurality of first conductive assemblies; wherein a first map containing either voltage or current or capacitance values at different locations on the surface of the touch panel is generated when there is no touch on the surface of the touch panel, and when there is a touch on the touch panel a second map is generated containing either voltage or current or capacitance values at similar locations as in the first map, and the second map and the first map are compared to determine the touch location on the surface of the touch panel. Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Krah US 2008/0157893 A1 July 3, 2008 Chang US 2008/0264699 A1 Oct. 30, 2008 Juan US 2013/0106727 A1 May 2, 2013 Brunet US 2015/0002444 A1 Jan. 1, 2015 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–8, 17–25 103 Brunet, Chang, Krah 9, 10, 12–14, 16 103 Brunet, Krah 26 103 Brunet, Chang, Krah, Juan ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 4 To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–24) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–14) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION Claim 1 With respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, Appellant contends the Examiner errs because “the Examiner reads the ‘one or more drive electrodes’ in Brunet as the ‘plurality of first conductive assemblies’ in claim 1, and reads the ‘one or more sense electrodes’ in Brunet as the ‘plurality of second conductive assemblies’ in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues, because “Brunet’s disclosed electrodes (drive electrodes and sense electrodes) and lines (drive lines and sense lines) are the same elements,” and because “Brunet’s electrodes are connected to each other by themselves rather than a conductive line,” “Brunet's disclosed lines are formed by Brunet’s electrodes” and therefore “Brunet’s ‘electrodes’ cannot be equivalent to Applicant’s conductive electrodes in claim 1.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Brunet ¶ 25). Appellant contends claim 1 recites “a separate conductive line to connect electrodes,” meaning “Applicant’s conductive electrodes and conductive lines are two separate elements with different functions.” Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 5 We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brunet, in Fig. 2a clearly teaches a plurality of first conductive assemblies (drive electrode lines 210) placed on a surface of the substrate in a first direction (e.g. a horizontal direction) (see Fig. 2a below, 10025, 10031); a plurality of second conductive assemblies (sense electrode lines 220) placed on the surface of the substrate in a second direction (e.g. vertical direction) (see Fig. 2a below, 10025, 10031). Fig. 2a below illustrates each of the drive lines 210 are composed of [] diamond shaped electrodes and lines that interconnect adjacent diamond shaped electrodes within a row, while each of the sense lines 220 are composed of diamond shaped electrodes and lines that interconnect adjacent diamond shaped electrodes within a column. Ans. 3–4. Figure 2a of Brunet is reproduced below. Figure 2a depicts “an example touch sensor wherein all rows are pulsed simultaneously and all columns are measured simultaneously.” Spec. ¶ 25. Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 6 Brunet discloses one or more drive electrodes may together form a drive line running horizontally or vertically or in any suitable orientation. Similarly, one or more sense electrodes may together form a sense line running horizontally or vertically or in any suitable orientation. In particular embodiments, drive lines may run substantially perpendicular to sense lines. Herein, reference to a drive line may encompass one or more drive electrodes making up the drive line, and vice versa. Brunet ¶ 25 (cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 3–4)). To whatever extent Appellant argues error on the basis that the rows and columns of Brunet contain electrodes but no lines, we disagree in view of the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of Brunet’s Figure 2a. Ans. 3–4. Brunet discloses that the drive electrodes and sense electrodes in Figure 2a “form a drive line” or “form a sense line,” respectively but does not disclose that the respective lines are formed exclusively of the electrodes. Appellant does not persuasively establish that the Examiner has erred by interpreting the connections between electrodes, which form the drive and sense lines in the form of rows and columns, in Brunet to be the claimed lines. Appellant contends error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 also because “the [claimed] touch location is determined by comparing a first map and a second map,” but the Examiner incorrectly finds that “Brunet discloses that the position of the touch can be determined by measuring the change in capacitance.” Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Brunet ¶ 23); Final Act. 16–17. Appellant discloses [t]ouch panel 80 can detect touches on substrate 1 by using different techniques. In the first technique, controller 4 applies a Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 7 current at a predetermined fundamental frequency to conductive assembly 3. The current is applied to one conductive assembly 3 at a time in sequence. While current is applied to one of the conductive assemblies 3, conductive assemblies 2 in the horizontal direction are sensed in a sequence. Once all the conductive assemblies 2 in horizontal direction are sensed, a current is applied to next conductive assembly 3 and then all conductive assemblies 2 are sensed in sequence. This process is repeated so that a map of capacitance distribution of touch panel 80 is calculated and stored in controller 4. This mapping of the touch panel is important because there are many stray capacitances caused by the touch panel structure and other neighboring structures. By mapping the touch panel 80, all the current capacitances captures while there is no touch on the surface. If a touch occurs, the capacitance at the point of touch will alter the capacitance at that point and as a result, the current sensed from that line will change. Controller 4 detects this change and determines the touch location based on this change. Spec. ¶ 24. Brunet discloses [w]hen an object touches or comes within proximity of the capacitive node, a change in capacitance may occur at the capacitive node and touchsensor controller 112 may measure the change in capacitance. By measuring changes in capacitance throughout the array, touch-sensor controller 112 may determine the position of the touch or proximity within the touch-sensitive area(s) of touch sensor 110. Brunet ¶ 23. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive. Appellant does not adequately explain why Brunet’s “change in capacitance” fails to teach or suggest first and second maps. Brunet ¶ 23. Appellant has not directed our attention to a construction of the claimed “comparing a first map and a second map” that precludes Brunet’s “measuring changes in capacitance throughout the array” to detect a touch at a capacitive node. Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 8 We also find unavailing Appellant’s argument as follows: Brunet discloses that capacitance at the intersection of the conductive electrodes can be measured by detecting the change of the capacitance. However, Applicant claims obtaining a map of the screen without a touch and with a touch and comparing them to determine the touch location which is resulted from the discovery of a problem “there are many stray capacitances caused by the touch panel structure and other neighboring structures”. Therefore, without understanding the problem, a person of ordinary skill in the art do not have the motivation to incorporate the features to raise the cost of the product. Appeal Br. 18. We find this unavailing because the premise that the inventor of Burnet did not understand the same problem as Appellant is unsupported by sufficient persuasive argument or evidence. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that “a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Ans. 10. The Examiner correctly points out “if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.” We also are not persuaded of error because, as the Supreme Court explained in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 9 Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites: wherein the frequency of the alternating current is determined by using the distance between the first conductive electrodes and the second conductive electrodes, the resistance of the conductive material used to build the first conductive electrodes and the second conductive electrodes, the area between the first conductive electrodes and the second conductive electrodes and the permeability of the material used to build the first conductive electrodes and the second conductive electrodes. Appeal Br. 34. The Examiner relies on Krah (Final Act. 8 (citing Krah Fig. 5, ¶¶ 99– 105)), finding the claim limitations “concerning determining the frequency of the alternating current amount[s] to nothing more than fundamental factors that affect the output frequency in a touch panel” (Ans. 11; see Final Act. 8 (providing a formula for frequency that uses the claimed factors)). Appellant argues error because, “after checking, the formula is not recited by Krah.” Appeal Br. 19. We are unpersuaded of error because the formula is provided merely for reinforcement of the Examiner’s primary finding—the claim recites fundamental factors—which Appellant does not persuasively rebut. Ans. 11; see generally Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 11–12. Moreover, in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, we decline to consider an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. This is because, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 10 Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). Appellant had the opportunity to argue the specifics of the formula provided by the Examiner in the Appeal Brief because the formula was provided in the Final Rejection. See Final Act. 8. Thus, we find unavailing Appellant’s Reply Brief argument that “the Examiner’s statements ‘C is the mutual capacitance’, ‘A is the area of the plates’ and ‘d is the distance between the plates’ are not correct since the cited generic formula can be applied to curved/spherical shaped devices” (Reply Br. 12) because it is belatedly presented. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claim 2. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends ultimately from claim1 and recites “wherein if the plurality of first conductive lines and the plurality of second conductive lines are made of metal mesh, then the plurality of insulators are used between individual metal lines in the first direction and individual metal lines in the second direction.” Appeal Br. 35. At the outset we note that claim 7 contains a conditional limitation, and, should further prosecution ensue, the Examiner might consider whether the broadest reasonable construction encompasses a touchpad wherein the plurality of first conductive lines and the plurality of second conductive lines are not made of metal mesh. See, e.g., Ex Parte Fleming, Appeal 2014- Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 11 002849, 2014 WL 7146104 (PTAB Dec, 12, 2014) (expanded panel decision on rehearing), Ex parte Urbanet et al., Appeal 2011-002606, 2012 WL 4460637 (BPAI Sept. 19, 2012), and Ex Parte Katz, Appeal 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011). Appellant argues error because Chang’s “conductive lines are not made of metal mesh.” Appeal Br. 22 (referring to the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 10–11). We are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 12–13), which Appellant does not persuasively rebut (see generally Reply Br.). Specifically, Appellant argues against the references individually, where the Examiner’s rejection is based on their combined teachings. Final Act. 11 (“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brunet with the teaching of Chang, so as to provide a touch panel have a simple process with high passing rate and low costs (¶[0018] of Chang).”). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hindsight Appellant argues against the rejections generally, alleging that the Examiner employed impermissible hindsight: Examiner’s analysis in the rejection fails to consider the claimed invention as a whole, and instead focuses on whether individual elements were known in the art. This again is improper. . . . Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 12 Examiner’s attempt to desperately piecemeal together a cogent argument from a maze of prior art should be rejected by the board. The examiner now cites three references for claims 1-8 and 17-25 and four references in rejecting claim 26. Rather than looking at the skill of an ordinary person in the art at the time of the claimed invention, the examiner has looked at the invention as a roadmap for finding prior art, and this is improper. Appeal Br. 32. We are unpersuaded of error. Rather, we adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments as follows: Appellant fails to provide explicit citation in the rejection that would lead to hindsight reasoning in the examination process and render the rejection defective. Nor does Appellant provide any specific arguments for improper combination of the references that would lead to hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Ans. 14. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, dependent claims 2 and 7, and claims 3–8 and 17–25, argued therewith or on the same basis. We also sustain the rejection of independent claim 9, argued based on arguments previously addressed, and claims 10, 12–14, 16, and 26, argued therewith. Appeal 2019-006501 Application 14/588,354 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 17–25 103 Brunet, Chang, Krah 1–8, 17–25 9, 10, 12– 14, 16 103 Brunet, Krah 9, 10, 12– 14, 16 26 103 Brunet, Chang, Krah, Juan 26 Overall Outcome 1–10, 12– 14, 16–26 TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation