Sony Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2020

2019003600 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 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.
15/498,663 04/27/2017 Takeshi OGITA 10150US03CON 6132
154930 7590 11/25/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ADAMS, CARL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2020 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):
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI OGITA
Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Sony Corporation
and Sony Mobile Communications Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a mobile information terminal having a
touch panel device that can detect a touch or proximity of an external
conductor such as a finger of a user by detecting, for example, a change in
capacitance or the like.” Spec. 1:12–14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A mobile apparatus comprising:
a display;
a front touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a
front side of the mobile apparatus;
a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a
side of the mobile apparatus, the side touch panel being formed
by extending the front touch panel continuously to a side of the
mobile apparatus; and
circuitry configured to control the display to display an
interface in a vicinity of the side of the mobile apparatus based
on a touch input detected at the side touch panel, wherein input
areas of the interface are arranged in a reticular pattern and
include a plurality of icons aligned in a plurality of horizontal
rows and a plurality of vertical columns arranged in the
reticular pattern.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hsieh US 2007/0075980 A1 Apr. 5, 2007
Kim US 2010/0085692 A1 Apr. 8, 2010
Karakotsios US 8,698,764 B1 Apr. 15, 2014

Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4–16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kim, Hsieh, and Karakotsios. Final Act. 2–12.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 4–16 over Kim, Hsieh, and
Karakotsios
The Examiner finds Kim, Hsieh, and Karakotsios teach all limitations
of claim 1. Final Act. 2–3.
In particular, the Examiner finds Kim’s transmission region 151
teaches “a front touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a front side
of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Kim Fig.
2A, ¶ 52); see also Ans. 4 (“[T]he transmission region 151 is in fact a touch
panel by virtue of the fact that touch inputs applied to the transmission
region 151 are sensed by the device so as to determine their location.”), 5–6
(“[T]he transmission region 151 must be considered as at least a part of the
touch sensor.”), 7 (“[T]he transmission region 151 is performing as the touch
screen.”).
In particular, the Examiner further finds Kim’s non-transmission
region 152 teaches “a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a
side of the mobile apparatus, the side touch panel being formed by extending
the front touch panel continuously to a side of the mobile apparatus” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Kim Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 52, 53)
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
i. “The touch sensors in the non-transmission [region] 152 of
Kim, however, are not a continuous extension of a front touch panel
Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
4
configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus, as
recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7.
ii. “[T]he transmission region 151 in Kim is not a touch panel and
cannot fairly be construed as analogous to the front touch panel recited in
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7–8. “[T]the transmission region 151 itself does not
detect the touch; instead the touch is detected by the sensors that ‘surround
the transmission region’.” Appeal Br. 9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
“[T]he transmission region 151 in Kim does not extend continuously
to a side of the mobile apparatus to form the touch sensor unit 140.” Reply
Br. 2.
[W]hile it may be reasonable to interpret Kim as capable
of detecting a touch input in the areas of the touch sensors
141 disposed over the non-transmission region 152, Kim
fails to teach or suggest that his device is capable of
detecting a touch input in the gap between the transmission
region 151 and the touch sensor 140.
Reply Br. 3.
[W]hile Kim states that his touch sensor 140 is capable of
detecting touch inputs received in the transmission region
151, Kim fails to disclose how this detection is performed.
With respect to detection of a touch input in the gap
formed between the transmission region 151 and the touch
sensor 140, Kim fails to state that his device is capable of
detecting a touch input in this gap, whatsoever, much less
describe how such a detection would be performed.
Reply Br. 3–4.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
5
Kim discloses
The touch sensor unit 140 may be provided around the
transmission region 151 and may be configured to sense whether
or not the first case 100 is touched. For example, as shown in
FIG. 2B, when a predetermined or preset area of the
transmission region 151 is touched, sensors S1, S2, S3 and S4 of
the touch sensor unit 140 surrounding the transmission region
151 sense touch positions and touch forces. Although the case
wherein touching of the transmission region 151 is sensed is
exemplified in FIG. 2B, touching of the non-transmission region
152 of an electronic device in example embodiments may also be
sensed.
Kim ¶ 52 (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief,
we find Kim’s transmission region 151 discloses “a front touch panel
configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus” as
recited in claim 1. Put another way, when the transmission region 151 is
touched, touch positions and touch forces are sensed (detected). Kim ¶ 52.
Thus, the transmission region 151 constitutes a front touch panel configured
to detect, as claimed. Similarly, we find Kim’s non-transmission region 152
discloses “a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a side of
the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1 because Kim discloses sensing
(detecting) touching of non-transmission region 152. Kim ¶ 52. Finally, Kim
discloses non-transmission region 152 formed by extending transmission
region 151. Kim Fig. 2A, ¶ 52. Thus, we find Kim discloses “the side touch
panel being formed by extending the front touch panel continuously to a side
of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1.
In reaching our decision, we recognize the role of Kim’s touch sensor
unit 140; nonetheless, we determine transmission region 151 and non-
transmission region 152 are “touch panels” because the touching of them is
Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
6
sensed (detected). Kim ¶ 52. Our interpretation of the term “touch panel” is
not unreasonable or overly broad in light of Appellant’s Specification. See
Spec. 17:20–18:14 (describing “front touch panel 52, “rear touch panel 56,”
and “driving circuit and circuit board 54 includ[ing] . . . touch panel
controller 24”); Drawing, Fig. 2 (depicting separate elements 52, 54, 56).
Regarding Appellant’s arguments presented in the Reply Brief, these
arguments are focused on a gap between transmission region 151 and touch
sensor unit 140. See Reply Br. 3–4. For reasons explained above, we
determine transmission region 151 and non-transmission region 152 are
“touch panels” as recited by claim 1, and the presence of any such gap or
touch inputs in the gap does not persuade us of Examiner error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4–16, which
are not separately argued with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–16 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–16 103 Kim, Hsieh,
Karakotsios
1, 2, 4–16

Appeal 2019-003600
Application 15/498,663
7
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