Ex Parte Hadwen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

14854607 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/854,607 09/15/2015
72119 7590 04/25/2018
MARK D. SARALINO (SHARP)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Benjamin James Hadwen
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
SMSLP0106US 1934
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENJAMIN JAMES HADWEN 1
Appeal2017-010592
Application 14/854,607
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sharp Microfluidic
Solutions Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010592
Application 14/854,607
INVENTION
The invention is directed to an active matrix electro-wetting on
dielectric device having a plurality of array elements, each array element
including an actuation electrode and an impedance sensor circuit to
determine a droplet property. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1. An active matrix electro-wetting on dielectric (AM-
EWOD) device comprising:
a plurality of array elements arranged in an array of rows
and columns, each of the array elements including array element
circuitry, an element electrode, and a reference electrode;
wherein the array element circuitry comprises:
an actuation circuit configured to apply actuation voltages
to the element and reference electrodes for actuating the array
element; and
an impedance sensor circuit configured to sense
impedance at the array element electrode to determine a droplet
property at the array element, and wherein the impedance sensor
circuit is configured to be operated by perturbing a potential
applied to the reference electrode.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 and 14 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US
2010/0177026 Al, published July 15, 2010) ("Dijk") and Sturmer et al. (US
2010/0194408 published August 5, 2010) ("Sturmer"). Final Act. 2-6. 2
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed May 3, 2017
("App. Br."), Reply Brief, filed August 10, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the
Examiner's Answer, mailed June 26, 2017 ("Answer"), and the Final Office
Action, mailed January 20, 2016 ("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2017-010592
Application 14/854,607
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 11 and 1 7 through 19
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dijk, Sturmer, and
Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Final Act. 6-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Dijk, Sturmer and Hagood et al. (US
2007/0086078 Al, April 19, 2007) ("Hagood"). Final Act. 9--10.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, on pages 8 through 16 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 is in error. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Dijk and Sturmer teaches that each of the
array elements of the electro-wetting on dielectric device includes array
element circuitry which comprises an impedance sensor circuit to sense
impedance at the array element electrode as recited in each of independent
claims 1 and 14.
Appellant's arguments persuade us of error. The Examiner, in the
Final Action, finds that Dijk teaches an array of elements in an electro-
wetting on dielectric device but that Dijk does not teach an impedance
sensor circuit to sense impedance to determine a droplet property. Final Act.
2-3. The Examiner finds that Sturmer also teaches an electro-wetting on
dielectric device, and that Sturmer teaches an actuating element and an
impedance sensor circuit. Final Act. 3; Answer 5-7. In the Examiner's
Answer, in response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner also finds that
Dijk teaches an impedance sensor ( equating the capacitor 21 to the claimed
3
Appeal2017-010592
Application 14/854,607
impedance sensor), thus teaching each array element having an impedance
sensor. Answer 3 (citing Dijk paragraph 0047, Figs. 2a and 7).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown the
combination of the references teaches that each array element of the electro-
wetting on dielectric device includes array element circuitry having an
impedance sensor circuit as claimed. We concur with the Examiner's
finding on page 6 of the Answer, that Strummer teaches an impedance
sensor circuit 836. See Fig. 8, and discussion in paragraphs 59---61.
However, as argued by Appellant on pages 11 through 13 of the Appeal
Brief, Sturmer teaches one impedance sensor is associated with multiple
elements of an electro-wetting on dielectric device. See Sturmer Fig. 9 and
paragraph 63.
In response to the Examiner's findings in the Answer that Dijk
teaches the claimed impedance sensor, Appellant argues:
Capacitor 21 is not an impedance sensor as claimed. Rather,
capacitor 21 retains a charge to maintain the voltage at the switch
23, referred to as the "holding state". (Van Dijk at paragraph
[ 004 7].) This is not a sensing operation and thus capacitor 21 is
not part of any impedance sensor circuit. Indeed, for the reasons
stated above, no sensing operation is performed in the display
device of Van Dijk because a sensing operation would have no
technical value.
Reply Br. 4. We concur with Appellant's argument, and we do not find that
Dijk's teachings identify that capacitor 21 is used as an impedance sensor
circuit to sense impedance to determine a droplet property as claimed.
Rather, as Appellant argues, the capacitor holds the array element in a state.
Reply Br. 2. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that every
element of the independent claims is taught or obvious over the prior art and
4
Appeal2017-010592
Application 14/854,607
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 14, or
dependent claims 2 through 4, 15, and 16, which are similarly rejected.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5 through
13 and 17 through 20 similarly rely upon the combination of Dijk and
Sturmer to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 14. The
Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in the rejections
of these claims make up for the deficiencies noted above in the rejection of
claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 5 through 13 and 17 through 20 for the same reasons as
provided with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5