Nihat Bayramoglu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019006501 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021)

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