Ex Parte Nodar Cortizo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2018

13881157 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/881,157 04/24/2013
34814 7590 07/09/2018
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Marcos Nodar Cortizo
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.
FS40231EH 8627
EXAMINER
PHAN, HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /09/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCOS NODAR CORTIZO, FLORENT AUGER, and
PATRICE BERTRAND
Appeal2018-000287
Application 13/881,157
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-14, 23, and 25-28, which are all the claims
pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc., NXP B.V., and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000287
Application 13/881,157
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a
tactile input device, a microprocessor system, and a method for controlling
the tactile input device. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A tactile input device comprising:
a proximity sensor unit arranged to detect an object or a
movement of an object in a proximity detection region and to
provide a proximity detection signal to the control device
indicative of a detection or non-detection of said object or
movement;
a tactile acoustic wave sensor unit for detecting a tactile
input, said acoustic wave sensor unit having a low power mode
and a high power mode; and
a control device to control the tactile acoustic wave
sensor unit to be in the low power mode or the high power
mode by providing a mode control signal based on the
proximity detection signal received from the proximity sensor
unit, and to control the tactile acoustic wave sensor unit to
transition to the high power mode within a predetermined time
after reception of the proximity detection signal.
References and Rejections
Claims 1--4, 6-14, 23, and 25-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling (US 2010/0026656
Al; published Feb. 4, 2010), Jacobsen (US 2007/0247436 Al; published
Oct. 25, 2007), and Battista (US 7,468,927 Bl; issued Dec. 23, 2008).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotelling, Jacobsen, Battista, and Dietz (US
2006/0166702 Al; published July 27, 2006).
2
Appeal2018-000287
Application 13/881,157
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3--4, 11) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 2-3) to the
extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 2
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants contend Hotelling, Jacobsen, and Battista do not
collectively teach "to control the tactile acoustic wave sensor unit to
transition to the high power mode within a predetermined time after
reception of the proximity detection signal," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added). See App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants argue
Battista merely teaches "at" a predetermined time based on real-time
clock-not "within" a predetermined time, and the combination does not
teach the italicized limitation. See App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds-and
Appellants do not persuasively dispute-Hotelling teaches "to control the
tactile acoustic wave sensor unit to transition to the high power mode ...
after reception of the proximity detection signal" (emphasis added). See
Final Act. 3, 11. Therefore, "to control the tactile acoustic wave sensor unit
to transition to the high power mode [within anytime] after reception of the
proximity detection signal" (emphasis added) is taught by or obvious in light
2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2018-000287
Application 13/881,157
of the teachings and suggestions of Hotelling. It is undisputed that Battista
teaches "a predetermined time." See Final Act. 4; Reply Br. 3; Battista
5: 17-18 ("real time clock 406, which wakes or powers-up the unit at a pre-
determined time").
Because Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's rationale for
combining the teachings of Hotelling and Battista, the Examiner correctly
determines "to control the tactile acoustic wave sensor unit to transition to
the high power mode within a predetermined time after reception of the
proximity detection signal" (emphasis added) is taught by or obvious in light
of the collective teachings and suggestions of Hotelling and Battista.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claim 14 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-13, 23, and 25-28, as Appellants do not advance separate
substantive arguments regarding those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14, 23, and 25-
28.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4