Ex Parte KonstasDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201711709897 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/709,897 02/21/2007 Jason Konstas CD06145 3567 60909 7590 12/14/2017 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 198 CHAMPION COURT SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709 EXAMINER SHAH, PRIYANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2017 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): patents @ cypress.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON KONSTAS Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 Technology Center 2600 Before, JOHNNYA. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed November 14, 2016, the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 10, 2017, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 10, 2017, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant 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)(vii). Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to detecting a conductive object proximate to a sensing device with at least one sensor element and preventing unintentional activation of the at least one capacitance sensor by using an additional sensor element. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: detecting a presence of a conductive object on a sensing device having one or more sensor elements; and preventing unintentional activation of the one or more sensor elements caused by the conductive object using an additional sensor element, wherein the one or more sensor elements and the additional sensor element each comprise a capacitance sensing electrode. 2 Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 The Examiner’s Rejections I. Claims 1-12 and 14-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Rothkopf (US 2007/0156364 Al, pub. July 5, 2007). II. Claims 26-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Marriott et al. (US 2005/0110768 Al, pub. May 26, 2005). III. Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rothkopf. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1—28 in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellant on pages 2 through 17 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—18; Ans. 2— 17. We have considered Appellant’s Reply Brief, but find it unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s responses. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 3 Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 Section 102 rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-25 over Rothkopf Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 23 turns on whether Rothkopf discloses “preventing unintentional activation,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 23 (see App. Br. 12 -14)1. The Examiner finds Rothkopf s hold switch provides the disputed “preventing unintentional activation” element. Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree: Rothkopf in 10067 discloses a “manual hold switch 107 is configured to activate and deactivate all or a select number of the input devices [106] by simply sliding a mechanical actuator from one position to another position (ON/OFF). This is generally done to prevent unwanted entries, as for example, when the device 100 is stored inside a user’s pocket. That is, the hold switch 107 prevents inadvertent or accidental entries that may occur while the device is being carried.” (Emphasis added) While 10067 discloses a manual switch 107 to prevent unintentional entries onto input devices 106, 10085 discloses sensors 110 for automatic switching between activating or deactivating input devices 106. Additionally, 10091 discloses “[t]he sensor(s) 110 can be used alone or in combination with the hold switch 107 mentioned above. That is, the sensor(s) 110 can completely replace the manual hold switch 107, or they may be used in addition to the manual hold switch 107 or a modified manual hold switch 107.” Therefore, Rothkopf certainly discloses preventing unintentional activation (10067) of the one or more sensor 1 Our reference to page numbers is based upon the cover page of the Appeal Brief being page 1, as the Appeal Brief does not contain any page numbers. 4 Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 elements (Fig. 3, 10067 input devices 106) caused by the conductive element using an additional sensor element (Fig. 3,10074 discloses capacitive touch sensors 110), as argued by Appellant. .. .Rothkopf clearly discloses activation of the one or more sensor elements (Fig. 3,10067 input devices 106) that is unintentional is prevented using an additional sensor element (Fig. 3,10074 discloses capacitive touch sensors 110), since the one or more sensor elements are deactivated in response to the active state indication of touch from the additional sensors (10085). Ans. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Rothkopf. As to Appellant’s other contentions regarding claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14-17, and 23-24, (App. Br. 14—33), we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning (Final Act. 3-15; Ans. 7-17), which are incorporated herein by reference. Section 102 rejection of claims 26-28 over Marriott Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26-28 turns on whether Marriott discloses “wherein the sensor element is disposed beneath a recessed portion of the button housing and completely within the boundaries of the recessed portion of the button housing,” as recited in independent claim 26 (see App. Br. 34-35). The Examiner finds, and we agree: Fig. 8 and 10083 discloses the touch pad 110, which includes capacitive sensor elements, is “recessed below... the surface of the housing 102.'” (Emphasis added) Thus, Marriott teaches “wherein the 5 Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 sensor element is disposed beneath a recessed portion of the button housing,” as claimed. Additionally, Fig. 12 and ]f0084 disclose “the outer perimeter of the shaped touch pad 110 defines the working boundary of the touch pad.'” Ans. 11. Accordingly, Marriott’s touch pad and housing provide the disputed element of claim 26. Ans. 4. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 26, and dependent claims 27 and 28 not argued separately (App. Br. 35—36) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejection of claim 13 Appellant has provided no separate arguments towards patentability for claim 13. Therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 13 is sustained for similar reasons to those noted supra. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 and 14-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rothkopf. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Marriott. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rothkopf. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—28. 6 Appeal 2017-008035 Application 11/709,897 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation