STMICROELECTRONICS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2019005254 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 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.
14/816,135 08/03/2015 Mythreyi NAGARAJAN ST-14-SIN-0514US01 9025
30432 7590 01/21/2021
SLATER MATSIL, LLP/ST- US
c/o SLATER MATSIL, LLP
17950 Preston Rd.
Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MYTHREYI NAGARAJAN, and
MANIVANNAN PONNARASU
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
Technology Center 2600

BEFORE JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25.
Claims 4, 13 and 19 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 19, 20, 22. 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 party in interest as
STMICROELECTRONICS ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25 were finally rejected. Final Act.
3. The rejection of all these claims is on appeal. Appeal Br. 11.
The invention relates to an electronic device having a touchscreen and
a controller operative to determine a valid single finger touch pattern on the
touchscreen. Spec. ¶ 7. The Specification explains that typically an input to
a touchscreen is intended by a user when placing a finger or a stylus on the
screen, and that sometimes two or more touches are intended simultaneously
to convey a specific navigation command, such as a zoom command within
an application. Id. ¶ 5. Thus, the Specification states that deciphering the
intent of the user when a single touch or simultaneous touches are received
is an important feature of any touch screen device. Id. The controller treats
as a valid single finger touch where the touch values on the touchscreen have
lower touch values within adjacent higher values. Id. ¶ 7. If that condition
is not true, then the controller causes a finger separation determination. Id.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a touchscreen comprising an array of finger touch sensitive
areas; and
a controller coupled to the touchscreen and configured to:
read raw touch values from the array of finger touch
sensitive areas, wherein the raw touch values are generated
an instance when a finger initially contacts at least a portion
of the array of finger touch sensitive areas; and
determine when the raw touch values define a valid
single finger touch pattern by determining whether lower
raw touch values are spatially located within adjacent higher
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
3
raw touch values, and, if so, using the spatial locations and
magnitudes of solely the raw touch values, treating the raw
touch values as being representative of a single finger touch,
and, if not, determining whether the raw touch values are
caused by two or more simultaneous finger touches using
the spatial locations and magnitudes of solely the raw touch
values, the lower raw touch values being raw touch values
having magnitudes that are less than a first threshold, the
higher raw touch values being raw touch values having
magnitudes that are greater than a second threshold.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Figure 3 shows a touch pattern and is reproduced below:

Figure 3 illustrates an ideal valid single touch pattern on an electronic
device. Id. ¶ 14. The Specification describes:
Referring to FIG. 3 and a diagram 30′ therein, the
controller 15 is configured to determine when the read touch
values (i.e. the identified rings) define a valid single finger touch
pattern having lower touch values 31′ within adjacent higher
touch values 32′, and, if so, treating the read touch values as
being representative of a single finger touch (Blocks 27, 29, 33,
37), and, if not, causing and/or performing a finger separation
determination (Blocks 38, 33, 35, 37). . . .
In diagram 30′, the identified valid single finger touch
pattern is ideal (i.e. representing a large finger tip of a user in a
weak grounding condition) and includes the lower touch values
31′ centered within the higher touch values 32′. Additionally,
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
4
the controller 15 is configured to not perform the finger
separation determination when the read touch values define the
valid single finger touch pattern (Blocks 27, 29, 33, 37).
Spec. ¶¶ 25–26.
REFERENCES

Name Reference Date
Chang US 2011/0084928 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Chang 4927 US 2011/0084927 A1 Apr. 14, 2011
Ksondzyk US 2014/0192027 A1 July 10, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25 were finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chang, Ksondzyk, and Chang 4927. Final
Act. 3.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25 over
Chang, Ksondzyk, and Chang 4927
1. Overview of Chang
Chang relates to touch-position detection on a touch screen. Chang
¶ 11. It describes a method and device for analyzing 2-D sensing
information. Id. ¶ 12. The touch-related sensing information may include
information with inner lower values within outer high values and
information with inner higher values within outer lower values. Id. The
analysis includes determining each touch information with inner higher
values within outer lower values. Id. ¶¶ 24, 169. Figures 6A and 6B show
basins and valleys formed by the sensing information (id. ¶ 45) and are
reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
5

Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
6
Figures 6A and 6B show differential touch related sensing
information showing formations of basins 610 and hills 620. Id. ¶ 169.
Chang describes:
Basin 610 refers to a large-area touch, e.g. a palm touch. Hill
620 refers to a small area touch, e.g. a finger or pen touch. In
FIG. 6B, hill 620 can be a one-peak hill 621or two-peak hill 622,
wherein one-peak hill 621 has signal intensities concentrated in
the center and can be [used] for recognizing a pen touch. Said
basin 610 is only one example of the touch related sensing
information with inner lower values within outer high values, and
the present invention is not limited to this.
Id. (emphasis added).
2. Overview of Ksondzyk
Ksondzyk relates to touch sensor devices including a touchscreen.
Ksondzyk ¶ 3. Ksondzyk recognizes an issue with a certain type of touch
sensor device, one that makes use of a single substrate without “jumpers”
which form a connection between individual electrode segments and insulate
them from other electrodes. Id. ¶ 4. Ksondzyk describes the problem as
increased cross—coupling between the electrodes, and “thereby causing
false touches, inaccuracy, and poor touch-response linearity.” Id. Ksondzyk
describes as an undesirable “tail effect” as follows:
In single-layer touch sensors that use interleaved
electrodes without “jumpers,” a conductive object may affect
portions (also referred to as “segments”) from multiple
electrodes, thereby causing a change in the capacitance even of
electrodes that are not directly under the contact by conductive
object and that should not register or otherwise detect the contact.
Such parasitic signal coupling outside of the actual touch sensor
area affected by the contact causes a parasitic signal increase or
a parasitic signal decrease (e.g., depending on the type of sensing
mechanism used by the touch sensor). Such parasitic signal
increase or decrease in one or more sensor is referred to herein
as “tail effect.”
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
7
Id. ¶ 26. Ksondzyk describes various techniques for correcting tail effects in
single-layer touch sensors. Id. ¶ 21. Specifically, Ksondzyk describes
generating a set of adjustment values that correspond to the tail effect, and
then generating a set of adjusted measurement values based on the
adjustment values, whereby the adjusted measurements correct the parasitic
signal change caused by the tail effect. Id. ¶¶ 27–29.
In addition to the foregoing, Ksondzyk describes that “in the case of
poor grounding the signal under a large conductive object (e.g., such as a fat
finger) may have a dip that makes sort of a ‘donut’ contact area.” Id. ¶ 158.
This disclosure about the shape or pattern of touch values of a fat finger in
the case of poor grounding conditions is the only teaching from Ksondzyk
that the Examiner relied on to apply against the rejected claims. Final Act.
15.
3. Overview of Chang 4927
Chang 4927 and Chang name the same inventors, claim priority to the
same U.S. Provisional Patent Applications, and were filed on the same day.
Chang, codes (22, 60, 75); Chang 4927, codes (22, 60, 75). The disclosures
of Chang and Chang 4927 are substantially the same. The Examiner relies
on Chang 4927 only for its disclosure of “detecting touches on the touch
screen from a plurality of touching fingers and distinguishing between a
single touch and multiple touches registered at a certain area of a touch
screen.” Final Act. 6 (citing Chang 4927, code (57), ¶ 42).
4. Independent Claim 1
The Examiner determined that Chang discloses every limitation of
claim 1, except the following two limitations: (1) Chang’s controller
determines when the raw touch values define a single object touch pattern
when lower raw touch values are spatially located within adjacent higher
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
8
raw touch values, rather than a single “finger” touch pattern as claimed, and
treating the raw touch values as being representative of a single object
[palm] touch rather than a single “finger” touch as claimed, and (2)
if not, determining whether the raw touch values are caused by
two or more simultaneous finger touches using the special
locations and magnitudes of solely the raw touch values, the
lower raw touch values being raw touch values having
magnitudes that are less than a first threshold, the higher raw
touch values being raw touch values having magnitudes that are
greater than a second threshold.
Final Act. 4–6. Appellant does not dispute that these are the sole differences
between Chang’s disclosure and claim 1.
For the first limitation, the Examiner relies on Ksondzyk’s disclosure
that “in the case of poor grounding the signal under a large conductive object
(e.g., such as a fat finger) may have a dip that makes sort of a ‘donut’
contact area.” Final Act. 5 (emphases omitted) (citing Ksondzyk ¶ 158).
The Examiner determines that, in light of Ksondzyk’s disclosure, it would
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to recognize a “basin”
type touch pattern as generated by a touching finger, as required by claim 1.
Id. at 5–6. The Examiner states: “The suggestion/motivation simply would
have been to detect touches from fingers as well as touches from palms
under the condition in which the portable touch screen device is poorly
grounded.” Id. at 6. For the second limitation, the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Chang 4927. Id. at 6 (citing Chang 4927, code (57), ¶ 42). The
Examiner states: “The suggestion/motivation simply would have been to
register all intended user touch inputs accurately, including simultaneous
finger touches, in order to provide the device response desired by the user.”
Id. at 7.
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
9
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s statements regarding
Ksondzyk and Chang 4927 teachings. Nor does Appellant challenge the
Examiner’s stated rationale for applying those teachings from Ksondzyk and
Chang 4927 in Chang. The only argument Appellant makes is that
Ksondzyk teaches away from using raw touch values for determining when
they represent a valid single finger touch pattern. Appeal Br. 12–15. For
reasons discussed below, Appellant’s “teach away” argument stemming
from Ksondzyk’s disclosure is misplaced and unpersuasive.
Appellant asserts:
Appellant respectfully submits that Ksondzyk is a
reference that discredits and discourages using raw
measurements for any registration or determination of contact
since these raw measurements have disadvantageous tail
effects associated with them, and, consequently, Ksondzyk
specifically avoids the use of raw measurements by teaching a
method of adjusting raw measurements to yield adjusted
measurements and to base any determination of a state of a touch
sensor on the adjusted measurements instead of the raw
measurements.
Id. at 12 (citations omitted). According to Appellant, “the Examiner seems
to completely ignore and turn a blind eye towards Ksondzyk’s extensive
teaching[s] regarding the detrimental effects of poor grounding and how to
overcome them.” Id. Also according to Appellant, a prior art reference
must be considered in its entirety, including portions that would lead away
from the invention, and that the Examiner is not entitled to pick portions of
the reference that are favorable to the Examiner and wholly ignore other
portions that are unfavorable to the Examiner. Id. at 13.
Appellant cites (Appeal Br. 13) to the following articulation of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: “the prior art’s mere
disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
10
. . . because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Based on that authority, Appellant asserts: “As such, Appellant
respectfully submits that if Chang, Ksondzyk, or Chang 4927 does ‘criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage’ the use of a recited feature of a claim,
then Chang, Ksondzyk, or Chang 4927 respectively teaches away from any
proposed modification that would include the recited feature.” Appeal Br.
13.
Appellant has misapplied Fulton to the facts of this case. As is
evident from the above-quoted text from Fulton, the criticism, discrediting,
and disparagement, if any, must rise above and beyond the level of merely
assessing the advantages and disadvantages among viable alternatives. The
central part of the sentence, which gives meaning to “criticize, discredit, and
discourage,” is “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
does not constitute a teaching away.” Fulton does not stand for the
proposition that any criticism, discrediting, or disparagement of a feature
constitutes a teaching away from adoption of that feature. Indeed, in Fulton
the Federal Circuit explained that “[c]hoosing one alternative necessarily
means rejecting the other,” and that “[t]his interpretation of our caselaw
[treating the choosing of one alternative as a teaching away from the other
alternative] fails.” Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
On this record, the facts are that Chang discloses one alternative, i.e.,
basing touch-location determination on raw touch values, and Ksondzyk
discloses another alternative, i.e., basing touch-location determination not on
raw touch values but on adjusted measurement values. Although Ksondzyk
characterizes its invention as correcting the adverse tail effect that would be
present if non-adjusted values were used, Appellant points to no statement in
Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
11
Ksondzyk that using solely raw touch values for determining a touch
location is not an acceptable or viable alternative. Indeed, even Appellant
characterizes Ksondzyk as merely identifying disadvantages for using raw
measurements: “Appellant respectfully submits that Ksondzyk is a reference
that discredits and discourages using raw measurements for any
registration or determination of contact since these raw measurements
have disadvantageous tail effects associated with them.” Appeal Br. 12.
Further, Appellant refers to Ksondzyk as “teach[ing] an alternative way.”
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added).
Additionally, on this record, Chang already discloses using raw touch
values for determining touch-location, and the Examiner has proposed no
modification of Chang to meet that requirement of the claim. Final Act. 15.
That further supports viewing Chang’s disclosure as providing an alternative
to one with ordinary skill in the art. Appellant asserts that the adverse tail
effects described in Ksondzyk already are present in Chang and that
Ksondzyk would have taught one with ordinary skill in the art to avoid them
by using adjusted measurement values instead. Appeal Br. 15. However, as
explained above, the teaching of a second alternative, even if better and
improved, does not constitute a sufficient “teaching away” of the first
alternative. The law does not require nullifying an original teaching when
an improved teaching is found which eliminates a disadvantage in the
original teaching. Such a position, if taken, would likely render inventions
patentable on the basis that they take a recognized step backward in the art.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Chang, Ksondzyk, and
Chang 4927.

Appeal 2019-005254
Application 14/816,135
12
5. Claims 2, 3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25
Appellant does not argue any one of claims 2, 3, 5–12, 14–18, and
20–25 separately from claim 1. Thus, they stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, 3, 5–12, 14–18, and 20–25 as obvious over
Chang, Ksondzyk, and Chang 4927.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–12,
14–18, 20–25
103 Chang, Ksondzyk,
Chang 4927
1–3, 5–12,
14–18, 20–25

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–12,
14–18, 20–25

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).
AFFIRMED