Ex Parte Reynolds

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

13434463 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2017)

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.
13/434,463 03/29/2012 Joseph Kurth Reynolds SYNA/l 10033US01 1088
98024 7590 08/10/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2017 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH KURTH REYNOLDS
Appeal 2017-004937
Application 13/434,463
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1—7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chen (US 2013/0021066 Al; Jan. 24, 2013), Chan (US
2012/0169661 Al; July 5, 2012), and Roohparvar (US 2007/0263462 Al;
Nov. 15, 2007). Non-Final Act. 3-25.
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-004937
Application 13/434,463
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “reducing transmitter power
consumption.” Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A processing system for an input device, the
processing system comprising:
a driver module comprising driver circuitry and
configured to couple with a first transmitter electrode that emits
a first transmitter signal when driven between first and second
voltage potentials, the second voltage potential being greater
than the first voltage potential, the driver module configured to
drive the first transmitter electrode to the second voltage
potential from an intermediate voltage potential between the first
and second voltage potentials;
an electronic storage device configured to couple with the
first transmitter electrode and to:
drive the first transmitter electrode from the first
voltage potential to the intermediate voltage potential, and
drive the first transmitter electrode from the second
voltage potential to the intermediate voltage potential;
a receiver module configured to couple with a receiver
electrode and to receive a resulting signal with the receiver
electrode, the resulting signal comprising effects corresponding
to the first transmitter signal; and
a determination module configured to determine
positional information for an input object in a sensing region of
the input device based on the resulting signal.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Chen, Chan, and Roohparvar teach all limitations
of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3—5. In particular, the Examiner finds
“Roohparvar teaches the second voltage being greater than the first voltage
potential (Paragraph 43); and the charge sharing device being able to drive
2
Appeal 2017-004937
Application 13/434,463
in both directions (Paragraph 43).” Non-Final Act. 5. Roohparvar discloses
charge sharing between bit lines. See Roohparvar 143; compare
Roohparvar Figs. 3A and 3B with Roohparvar Fig. 2.
The Examiner reasons:
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to
a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charge sharing
device of Chen and the touch sensitive device of Chan et al. with
the voltage potentials of Roohparvar. The motivation to modify
the teachings of Chen and Chan et al. with the teachings of
Roohparvar is to provide an intermediate voltage between a first
voltage and the line voltage for selecting removing or adding
charge, as taught by Roohparvar (Paragraph 43).
Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 26—28 (describing the disclosures in
Roohparvar).
Among arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
argument:
Appellant submits that combining Roohparvar with the
Chen and Chan references is not obvious. First, with respect to
this proposed combination, the Office has not made a showing
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, but
provides only a conclusory statement as rationale for this
combination. Appellant notes that the suggested motivation —
“to provide an intermediate voltage between a first voltage and
the line voltage for selecting removing or adding charge” —
essentially repeats the claimed limitations (1) and (5) discussed
above. The Office provides no explanation how “provid[ing] an
intermediate voltage ... for selectively removing or adding
charge” would benefit the combination of Chen and Chan.
App. Br. 14 (brackets and ellipsis in original); see also App. Br. 15 (“the
Office merely posits that Chen and Chan can be modified using Roohparvar,
on the basis of generally desirable features (e.g., charge sharing with an
intermediate voltage) without any specific explanation of how the proposed
3
Appeal 2017-004937
Application 13/434,463
combination of Chen, Chan, and Roohparvar would synergistically
interoperate to produce the specific embodiment recited in independent
claim 1.”) and Reply Br. 2—3 (reaffirming arguments presented in Appeal
Brief).
We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We find the record lacks a sufficient articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. In
making the rejection, the Examiner refers to Chen’s elements 408 and 708
(Chen Figs. 4 and 7) as the recited first electrode. Non-Final Act. 4. For
example, in Chen’s Fig. 4, electric storage unit 400 is the electronic storage
device coupled to first electrode 408. See Non-Final Act. 3. Chen (| 23)
discloses “the second output buffer 404 can reuse the electric charges
released by the first output buffer 402 according to charge sharing provided
by the source driver 40, without needing to obtain the required electric
charges from the intermediate voltage source V_M.” Thus, and as
acknowledged by the Examiner, Chen drives first electrode 408 in one
direction. See Non-Final Act. 4 (“Chen lacks... the charge sharing device
being able to drive in both directions”).
To the extent Roohparvar (| 43) discloses charge sharing between bit
lines 304 (Roohparvar Figs. 3A and 3B), the Examiner’s reasoning (see
Non-Final Act. 5 and Ans. 26—28) only generally describes the disclosures in
Roohparvar and mentions benefits of utilizing an intermediate voltage for
driving low-to-high or high-to-low. This explanation falls short of
articulating how and why Chen would have been modified by one skilled in
the art to drive in both directions with the charge sharing device, particularly
in light of Chen’s specific disclosures of driving first electrode 408 in one
4
Appeal 2017-004937
Application 13/434,463
direction. In short, the Examiner’s stated motivation (Non-Final Act. 5):
“provide an intermediate voltage between a first voltage and the line voltage
for selecting [sic (recte, selectively)] removing or adding charge” merely
restates the teachings of Roohparvar, and does not sufficiently articulate how
and why Chen would have been modified. See also Ans. 26—28 (describing
the disclosures in Roohparvar).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 2—7, which depend from claim 1.
In rejecting independent claim 10, the Examiner provides the same
reasoning with respect to Roohparvar. See Non-Final Act. 14. We,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10,
or of claims 11—17, which depend from claim 10.
In rejecting independent claim 18, the Examiner provides the same
reasoning with respect to Roohparvar. See Non-Final Act. 24. We,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 18,
or of claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 18.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 10—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5