Ex Parte Abileah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2016

12568316 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/568,316 09/28/2009
67673 7590 07118/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP NOV A
1650 TYSONS BLVD.
SUITE 300
MCLEAN, VA 22102
Adie! Abileah
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
106842030509
(P7817USC10)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6137
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, KEITH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2016 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):
EOfficeVA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADIEL ABILEAH and WILEM DEN BOER
Appeal2015-002889 1
Application 12/568,316
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KEN B. BARRETT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple Inc. App. Br. 2. This
Appeal relates to Appeal no. 2012-004350 (11/901,649) decided October 22,
2014, Appeal No. 2013-009226 (11/568,302) decided October 16, 2015,
Appeal No. 2014-003638 (11/595,071) decided March 31, 2016, Appeal No.
2014-005463 (11/977,864) decided April 14, 2016, and Appeal No. 2014-
006458 (11/978,031) decided April 18, 2016. We leave it to the Examiner
to decide whether possible issues of double patenting should be raised.
Appeal2015-002889
Application 12/568,316
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a light sensitive display device
with two object detection modes such that the display device is able to
operate in both low/high ambient lighting conditions. Spec. i-fi-12, 67, Fig. 1.
In particular, the surface of the display device (20) includes a stack of layers
( 52---60) containing a first set of light sensitive elements optimizable at a low
ambient condition corresponding to a first detection mode for locating an
object on or near the display surface. Likewise, the stack of layers includes
a second set of light sensitive elements optimizable at a high ambient
condition corresponding to a second detection mode for locating the object
on or near the display surface. Id. i-fi-169-74. Thus, upon selecting any one
of the two detection modes (but not both), the corresponding location of the
object on or near the display surface is detected. Id. i1 59.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A display device comprising a stack of layers having a
surface, the stack of layers being configured to display an image at the
surface of the stack of layers,
a plurality of light sensitive elements included in the stack of
layers, and a processor configured to selectively operate in any one of
a plurality of detection modes in which the processor detects an
object on or near the surface in response to light based on a
preconfigured sensitivity to light associated with the light sensitive
elements, wherein the preconfigured sensitivity to light according to
which the processor detects an object when operating in one of the
detection modes differs from the preconfigured sensitivity to light
according to which the processor detects an object when operating in
other of the detection modes.
Palalau
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 6,271,813 Bl
2
Aug. 7,2001
Appeal2015-002889
Application 12/568,316
Kennedy
Lan
Newton
US 2002/0080123 Al Jun.27,2002
US 2004/0252867 Al Dec. 16, 2004
US 6,864,882 B2 Mar. 8, 2005
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claim 1-7, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Newton.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Newton and Kennedy.
Claims 8, 10-12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Newton and Palalau.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of}Je\'lv1on and Lan.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4--9, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-7.2 We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 14, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
January 20, 2014), and the Answer (mailed November 14, 2014) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2015-002889
Application 12/568,316
we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from
which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-16. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Anticipation Rejection
First, Appellants argue that Newton does not describe a stack of layers
including a plurality of light sensitive elements having a surface configured
to display an image, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4---6, Reply
Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue Newton's disclosure of a touch
panel display system including a display screen (152) having located on the
sides thereof an emitter (156) and a pair of detectors (159) does not describe
a stack of layers configured to display an image at the surface of the layers.
Id. According to Appellants, because the emitter and detectors are located
on the side of the display screen, they are distinct from the display, and are
not in any layer capable of displaying an image. Id. This argument is not
persuasive.
At the outset, we note claim 1 requires in relevant part that the display
device includes a stack of layers having a surface configured to display an
image, light sensitive elements included in the layers, and a processor to
selectively operate in one of a plurality of detection modes. Therefore, we
concur with the Examiner that the display device encompasses not only the
display screen, but also other components of a computing system. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Newton's disclosure of the emitter layer
including emitter 156, the display layer including display screen 152, and the
detector layer including detector 159 describe a stack of layers within a
computing system. Ans. 12 (citing Newton figs. 2-3). Further, as
4
Appeal2015-002889
Application 12/568,316
acknowledged by Appellants, the Examiner correctly concludes that the
claim does not require each one of the plurality of layers to be capable of
individually displaying an image. Instead, the claim only requires that the
stack of layers as a whole be capable of displaying an image. Ans. 12;
Reply Br. 5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that because
Newton's display layer includes light sensitive elements, and is capable of
displaying an image, the stack of layers disclosed in Newton describes the
disputed limitations. Ans. 12-13.
Second, Appellants argue that Newton does not disclose a processor
configured to selectively operate in one of a plurality of detection modes
selected based on a preconfigured sensitivity to light associated with the
sensitive elements. App. Br. 6-8. According to Appellants, while emitters
can be cycled on/off to increase the sensitivity of the touch panel display, the
cyclical activation of emitters does not change the preconfigured sensitivity
to light associated with the detectors. Id. at 7. Instead, Newton discloses a
computing device that changes the duty cycle of emitters to cause the
automatic gain control components of the detectors to dynamically reset the
sensitivity levels of detectors based on the current levels of ambient light at a
current time, thereby disclosing a dynamic light sensitivity, as opposed to a
preconfigured light sensitivity. Reply Br. 6. This argument is not
persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Newton discloses a computing
device including a processor for monitoring signals generated by a detector,
as well as for automatically adjusting the light sensitivity thereof with
ambient light conditions to thereby calibrate the detector. Ans. 15 (citing
Newton 14: 11-12, 41--46). We agree with the Examiner the disclosed
5
Appeal2015-002889
Application 12/568,316
calibration of the detector by the computing system, in advance, such that
the detector can function accurately with different ambient light conditions
describes the computing device pre-configuring the detector's light
sensitivity to dynamically adjust with various ambient light conditions. Ans.
16
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not
provided arguments or evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner's
rejection of representative claim 1. It therefore follows that Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-7, 15, 16, and 19, because Appellant reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-7 and 15, 16, and 19 fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Obviousness Rejection
Regarding the rejections of claims 8-14, 17, and 18, Appellants argue
that neither Palalau, Kennedy, nor Lan cures the alleged deficiencies in
Newton with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 8. As discussed above, we find no
such deficiencies in Newton for the cited secondary references to remedy. It
follows Appellants have not have not shown error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of claims 8-14, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6