Yilmaz, Esat et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2020

13309042 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
13/309,042 12/01/2011 Esat Yilmaz 080900.1221 8354
12323 7590 03/24/2020
Baker Botts L.L.P./Atmel Corporation
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 900
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
ONYEKABA, AMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2020 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):
ptomail1@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ESAT YILMAZ and LEO MERKEN
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, 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, 5–8, 12–15, 19–25, 28–30, and 32.
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 JPMorgan Chase
Bank. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “touch sensors.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a touch sensor of a device, signals
corresponding to touch or proximity inputs that occur
substantially simultaneously within a touch-sensitive area of the
touch sensor, the touch-sensitive area having a plurality of
periphery areas on a same surface of the device, the periphery
areas comprising a plurality of corner areas and a plurality of
edge areas;
determining respective locations of the touch or
proximity inputs that occur substantially simultaneously within
the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor;
determining, based on the respective locations of the
touch or proximity inputs, that a substantially complete surface
touch of the touch-sensitive area of the device has occurred,
wherein determining that a substantially complete surface touch
of the touch sensitive area of the touch sensor of the device has
occurred comprises determining that the respective locations of
the touch or proximity inputs that occur substantially
simultaneously within the touch-sensitive area of the touch
sensor are located within more than one of the plurality of
periphery areas, wherein determining that the respective
locations of the touch or proximity inputs that occur
substantially simultaneously within the touch-sensitive area of
the touch sensor are located within more than one of the
plurality of periphery areas is a proxy for detecting a
substantially complete surface touch of the touch-sensitive area
of the device; and
initiating, based on determining that the respective
locations of the touch or proximity inputs that occur
substantially simultaneously are within more than one of the
plurality of periphery areas, a pre-determined function of the
device, the predetermined function associated with the
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
3
substantially complete surface touch of the touch-sensitive area
of the device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kerr US 7,800,592 B2 Sept. 21, 2010
Moon US 2010/0173679 A1 July 8, 2010
Mosby US 8,358,277 B2 Jan. 22, 2013
Skillman US 2012/0254631 A1 Oct. 4, 2021

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 22–25, 28, and 30 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kerr. Final Act. 4–19.
Claims 6, 13, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kerr and Moon. Final Act. 20–21.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kerr and Mosby. Final Act. 21–22.
Claims 29 and 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Kerr and Skillman. Final Act. 23–24.
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 22–25, 28, and 30
by Kerr
The Examiner finds Kerr describes all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 4–6.
In particular, the Examiner finds Kerr describes “determining that the
respective locations of the touch or proximity inputs that occur substantially
simultaneously within the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor are
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
4
located within more than one of the plurality of periphery areas” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Kerr Fig. 17B); see also Ans. 5–6 (citing Kerr
Fig. 17B, col. 14, ll. 20–30, col. 15, ll. 10–12), 7 (“wherein plurality of
periphery, edge and corner areas and/or locations touched by the user
grasping the device are simultaneously sensed as shown in fig. 17b for
determining handedness. Whereas in [order] to determine if the user is
left or right handed, you have to determine the sensed location of the
finger and palm”), 8–9 (citing Kerr Figs. 17A–17D, col. 15, ll. 35–45).
In particular, the Examiner finds Kerr describes “determining, based
on the respective locations of the touch or proximity inputs, that a
substantially complete surface touch of the touch-sensitive area of the device
has occurred” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Kerr Fig. 17B, col.
14, ll. 20–30, col. 15, ll. 6–44); see also Ans. 6 (citing Kerr Fig. 17B, col.
14, ll. 20–30, col. 15, ll. 6–44).
In particular, the Examiner finds Kerr describes
determining that the respective locations of the touch or
proximity inputs that occur substantially simultaneously within
the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor are located within
more than one of the plurality of periphery areas is a proxy for
detecting a substantially complete surface touch of the touch-
sensitive area of the device as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Kerr Fig. 17B, col. 14, ll. 20–30, col. 15, ll. 6–44); see
also Ans. 6 (citing Kerr Fig. 17B, col. 14, ll. 20–30, col. 15, ll. 6–44).
In summary, regarding these particular findings, the Examiner
explains as follows:
Thus the touch sensitive housing of Kerr senses both fingers
and palm simultaneously via the touch sensitive housing
which includes periphery, corner and edge areas which are
simultaneously sensed within the plurality of periphery, edge
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
5
and corner areas and/or locations as shown in fig. 17b above
in other to determine handedness. Therefore the
simultaneous sensing of both palm and fingers which
requires sensing of both corners, periphery and edge areas
and/or locations of the touch sensitive corresponds to claimed
complete surface).
Ans. 6.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. Kerr does not describe “determining that the respective
locations of the touch or proximity inputs that occur substantially
simultaneously within the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor are
located within more than one of the plurality of periphery areas” as recited in
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19–21; see also Reply Br. 2–4. For example,
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner improperly equates ‘determining the
respective locations of the touch,’ which allegedly is ‘located within more
than one of the plurality of periphery areas,’ with the actual determination
that the ‘respective locations of the touch . . . are located within more than
one of the plurality of periphery areas.’” Appeal Br. 20.
ii. Kerr does not describe “determining, based on the respective
locations of the touch or proximity inputs, that a substantially complete
surface touch of the touch-sensitive area of the device has occurred” as
recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21–22; see also Reply Br. 4–5. For
example, Appellant argues “[t]his argument [by the Examiner] is critically
flawed because it confuses determining the existence of touches that may
correspond to a substantially complete surface with the actual determination
that ‘a substantially complete surface touch of the touch-sensitive area of the
device has occurred.’” Appeal Br. 22.
iii. Kerr does not describe
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
6
determining that the respective locations of the touch or
proximity inputs that occur substantially simultaneously within
the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor are located within
more than one of the plurality of periphery areas is a proxy for
detecting a substantially complete surface touch of the touch-
sensitive area of the device
as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 23–25; see also Reply Br. 4–5. For
example, Appellant argues “Kerr discloses something totally different: the
determination of how a user is holding the device is accomplished by
grouping together all signals, not just edge and corner signals, to create a
pixilated image of the hand in contact with the device.” Appeal Br. 24.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner’s findings.
Regarding Appellant’s argument i, the broad claim language does not
preclude a finding that Kerr describes the argued limitation. Kerr discloses
“the device 150 knows where and when all the fingers and palm are touching
the device 150.” Kerr col. 14, ll. 28–29. Thus, Kerr describes “determining
that the respective locations of the touch or proximity inputs that occur
substantially simultaneously within the touch-sensitive area of the touch
sensor are located within more than one of the plurality of periphery areas”
as recited in claim 1 because Kerr determines when and where the device
150 is touched, including the device 150 being touched within more than one
of a plurality of periphery areas. See Kerr col. 14, ll. 28–29; see also Kerr
Fig. 17B (depicting touch inputs located in more than one periphery area).
Regarding Appellant’s argument ii, again, the broad claim language
does not preclude a finding that Kerr describes the argued limitation. Kerr
discloses “the device 150 knows where and when all the fingers and palm
are touching the device 150.” Kerr col. 14, ll. 28–29. Kerr further discloses
“[t]he signals generated at the sensing points 162 may be used to determine
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
7
how the user is holding the device.” Kerr col. 15, ll. 35–36. Thus, Kerr
describes “determining, based on the respective locations of the touch or
proximity inputs, that a substantially complete surface touch of the touch-
sensitive area of the device has occurred” as recited in claim 1 because Kerr
determines when and where the device 150 is touched, including the device
150 being held such that a substantially complete surface touch has
occurred. See Kerr col. 14, ll. 28–29, col. 15, ll. 25–36; see also Kerr Figs.
17A–D.
Regarding Appellant’s argument iii, again, the broad claim language
does not preclude a finding that Kerr describes the argued limitation. Kerr
describes
determining that the respective locations of the touch or
proximity inputs that occur substantially simultaneously within
the touch-sensitive area of the touch sensor are located within
more than one of the plurality of periphery areas is a proxy for
detecting a substantially complete surface touch of the touch-
sensitive area of the device
as recited in claim 1 because Kerr determines when and where the device
150 is touched, including the device 150 being held such that a substantially
complete surface touch has occurred. See Kerr col. 14, ll. 28–29, col. 15, ll.
25–36; see also Kerr Figs. 17A–D.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that it is uncontested that Kerr
describes the claimed “receiving” step and the claimed “initiating” step. See
Appeal Br. 18–25; see also Reply Br. 2–5. In essence, this appeal turns on
whether Kerr describes using touches in more than one periphery area as a
proxy for detecting a substantially complete surface touch. The broad claim
language does not define the periphery areas beyond the periphery areas
comprising corner areas and edge areas. Kerr describes touch sensors as
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
8
claimed. See Kerr Figs. 16, 17A–D. Kerr further describes “[t]he signals
generated at the sensing points 162” (touches in more than one periphery
area) “may be used to determine” (as a proxy for) “how the user is holding
the device” (a substantially complete surface touch). Kerr col. 15, ll. 35–36.
We do not see a distinction between Kerr and the claims as currently
presented.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 22–25, 28, and
30, which are not separately argued with particularity.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6, 13, and 21 over Kerr and Moon
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 18–25; see also Reply Br. 2–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, and
21.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7, 14, and 20 over Kerr and Mosby
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 18–25; see also Reply Br. 2–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14, and
20.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 29 and 32 over Kerr and Skillman
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for this ground of
rejection. See Appeal Br. 18–25; see also Reply Br. 2–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 32.
Appeal 2019-001665
Application 13/309,042
9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 8, 12,
15, 19, 22–
25, 28, 30
102 Kerr 1, 5, 8, 12, 15,
19, 22–25, 28,
30

6, 13, 21 103(a) Kerr, Moon 6, 13, 21
7, 14, 20 103(a) Kerr, Mosby 7, 14, 20
29, 32 103(a) Kerr, Skillman 29, 32
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–8, 12–15,
19–25, 28–30,
32

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