TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2022

2021003621 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2022)

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. 15/657,104 07/21/2017 Luke LaPointe TI-77557 2984 23494 7590 02/04/2022 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER TRAN, TRAN M. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2855 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2022 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUKE LAPOINTE and YIBO YU Appeal 2021-003621 Application 15/657,104 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3.2 Appeal Br. 6-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed July 21, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered August 5, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed December 1, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer entered March 15, 2021 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed May 17, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-003621 Application 15/657,104 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to capacitive sensing, including capacitive sensing for liquid levels. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below, and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 8, Claims App.): 1. A system for capacitive liquid level measurement, comprising: a container with liquid; a level sensor with level+ and level- electrodes, driven out-of-phase with each other to project a sensing electric field into the container; a reference sensor with ref+ and ref- electrodes, driven out-of-phase with each other to project a sensing electric field into the container; sensor electronics to drive the level+ sensor electrode and level- sensor electrode out-of-phase with each other, and drive the reference+ sensor electrode and ref- sensor electrode out of phase with each other, to project respective level and reference capacitance sensing fields into the container, and acquire respective level and reference capacitance measurements from the level and reference sensors through phased charge transfer using a switched capacitor arrangement, and differentially convert the level and reference capacitance measurements into data representative of liquid level in the container; and a multiplexer that receives data from the electrodes and outputs the data to a capacitance to digital converter. Appeal 2021-003621 Application 15/657,104 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Zhou US 8,810,260 B1 Aug. 19, 2014 Miatton et al. (“Miatton”) US 2016/0003663 A1 Jan. 7, 2016 Wang “Capacitive Sensing: Out-of-Phase Liquid Level Technique” Texas Instruments Application Report, SNOA925 Jan. 2015 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 3-5. 2. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miatton and Wang. Final Act. 6-8. 3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miatton, Wang, and Zhou. Final Act. 8-9. OPINION We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient to decide the rejections on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2013). Rejections 1 and 2 Discussion The entirety of Appellant’s argument is: “Neither Miatton nor Wang teach or suggest the use of phased charge transfer for capacitance measurements.” Appeal Br. 6. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates this Appeal 2021-003621 Application 15/657,104 4 argument with respect to Wang and further states that Wang does not mention the use of phased charge transfer. Reply Br. 2. Appellant does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s explanations and reasoning, which we expressly adopt herein, with respect to how Wang or Miatton meets the recitation in claim 1 of “acquire respective level and reference capacitance measurements from the level and reference sensors through phased charge transfer using a switched capacitor arrangement.” See Final Act. 4-5, Ans. 4-5 (finding Wang discloses measuring the fringe capacitance between electrodes with an FDC10043 capacitive-to-digital converter using an out-of-phase technique citing Wang §§ 1, 3.1, 3.2); Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5 (finding Miatton discloses the CDC 40 can be configured to implement capacitive sensing “based on capacitive charge transfer” citing Miatton ¶¶ 27-29). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that more substantive arguments are required in an appeal brief “than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Rejection 3 Claim 3, the subject of Rejection 3, depends from claim 1. Appellant relies on the dependency of claim 3 for patentability. Appeal Br. 6. 3 The Examiner relied on NPL FDC1004 (“FDC1004 4-Channel Capacitance-to-Digital Converter for Capacitive Sensing Solutions,” Texas Instruments, SNOSCY5B, April 2015, p. 10, § 8.2) as evidence to demonstrate the design and structure of the FDC1004. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2021-003621 Application 15/657,104 5 Accordingly, we affirm Rejection 3 for similar reasons as discussed above for Rejections 1 and 2. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2 102(a)(1) Wang 1, 2 1, 2 103 Miatton, Wang 1, 2 3 103 Miatton, Wang, Zhou 3 Overall Outcome 1-3 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