Ex Parte Abileah et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 14, 201612568316 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation