Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

14205781 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
14/205,781 03/12/2014 Gordon F. Taylor 67200US007 1083
32692 7590 12/02/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
BOLOTIN, DMITRIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON F. TAYLOR and
THOMAS J. REBESCHI1
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—8, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (App. Br.) identifies the real party in interest as 3M
Company (formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company) of St. Paul, Minnesota and its affiliate 3M Innovative Properties
Company of St. Paul, Minnesota. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a modular connector for a touch sensitive
device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A modular connector for use with a touch sensor,
comprising:
a substrate;
a integrated circuit disposed on the substrate;
a plurality of first terminal areas disposed on the substrate
and individually addressable by the integrated circuit; and
a second terminal area disposed on the substrate and
communicatively coupled to the integrated circuit, such that
when the modular connector is used with a touch sensor, the
plurality of first terminal areas make electrical connection with a
plurality of electrodes of the touch sensor, and the second
terminal area makes electrical connection with a terminal area of
another modular connector used with the touch sensor.
App. Br. 7 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Nakamura (JP2000-267065, published Sept. 29, 2000).
Claims 3, 4, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Nakamura and Hayton (US 2011/0095999 Al, published
Apr. 28,2011).
ISSUE FOR DECISION
Does Nakamura disclose a “modular connector” under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of that term?
2
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
ANALYSIS
Examiner’s Findings and Appellants ’Arguments
The Examiner finally rejects the independent claims as anticipated by
Nakamura, finding Nakamura discloses the claimed modular connector.
Final Act. 2—3. In making these findings, the Examiner construed the term
“modular” according to its ordinary meaning of “[ejmploying or involving a
module or modules as the basis of design or construction.” Final Act. 7—8
(citing Oxford Dictionaries). Applying that construction, the Examiner finds
Nakamura’s four different groups of sampling switches 23, buffers 24 and
timing circuits 25 each form a modular connector for use with a touch
sensor, as shown in Figure 1. Final Act. 3—5, 7—8.
nan
Figure 1 of Nakamura shows a liquid crystal display device.
3
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Nakamura discloses a
“modular connector” because the Examiner fails to accord patentable weight
to the term “modular.” App. Br. 4.2 Appellants contend one of ordinary
skill in the art would not consider the elements 23, 24, and 25 shown in
Nakamura to form a modular connector. App. Br. 4—5. Appellants further
contend the Examiner failed to define “module,” and provided only a
circular definition of “modular.” App. Br. 5. Appellants offer a dictionary
definition for the term module from the American Heritage Dictionary: “a
self-contained assembly of electronic components and circuitry, such as a
stage in a computer, that is installed as a unit.” App. Br. 4. Applying this
construction, Appellants argue Nakamura is deficient because the driving
circuit 22 does not include a plurality of modules, each installed as a unit.
App. Br. 5. Appellants further add Nakamura’s elements 23, 24, and 25
cannot be modules because they are formed on the same substrate. App.
Br. 5.
The Examiner provides a competing dictionary definition in the
Examiner’s Answer and adds additional explanation:
Therefore, here the word “module” is defined as “a set of
standardized parts or independent units that can be used to
construct a more complex structure.'1'’
Examiner is interpreting each set of sampling switch 23, buffer
24 and timing circuit 25 connected to one of the sections 11 A—
IIP as a standardized part, and the set of these standardized
parts can be used to construct a more complex structure that is
driving circuit 22 of fig. 1.
Ans. 4.
2 Appellants present the same arguments for all claims, so all pending claims
stand or fall together.
4
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner’s definition should
not be adopted because it is not consistent with the standalone modular
connector shown in Figure 5 of the Specification. Reply Br. 2. Appellants
further argue that, under the Examiner’s proposed definition, Nakamura still
does not disclose any modular connector. Id. According to Appellants, the
Examiner has failed to demonstrate each grouping of sampling switches 23,
buffers 24 and timing circuits 25 is an independent unit or standardized part,
so the groupings cannot be considered modular connectors.
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
This appeal turns on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
phrase “modular connector.” Appellants’ Specification does not provide a
lexicographic definition “module” or “modular connector.” Accordingly, it
is appropriate in this instance to consult dictionary definitions for guidance
in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Comaper Corp. v. Antec,
Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, we have a case of
competing definitions respectively offered by Appellants and the Examiner.
The Federal Circuit has held that “[i]f more than one dictionary definition is
consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms
may be construed to encompass all consistent meanings.” Bilstad v.
Wakalopulos, 386 F.3d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proffered definition is
inconsistent with the standalone modular connector shown schematically in
Figure 5 of the Specification. We disagree, and find both offered dictionary
definitions to be consistent with the specification. The Examiner’s
definition of “a set of standardized parts or independent units that can be
used to construct a more complex structure” encompasses the standalone
5
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
modular connector shown in Figure 5 because the modular connector in
Figure 5 is both a standardized part and an independent unit used to
construct a more complex structure, namely, a platform that allows
individual addressing of electrodes in a display.
Nakamura Discloses a Modular Connector
Having determined that a “module” includes “a set of standardized
parts or independent units that can be used to construct a more complex
structure,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding Nakamura teaches the
recited “modular connector.” We are not persuaded by Appellants’
contention that Nakamura’s groupings of a sampling switch 23, a buffer 24,
and a timing circuit 25 is neither a standardized part nor an independent unit.
Reply Br. 2. Each of the four groupings has the same three parts: a
sampling switch, a buffer, and a timing circuit. Because each grouping has
the same set of parts, they can be considered to be “standardized parts.” We
are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that, because the four
groupings are formed on the same substrate, they cannot be considered
modular connectors. This argument is contradicted by Appellants’ own
Specification which discloses “[i]n one embodiment, the modular connectors
are on a single, continuous substrate, for example a single piece of PCB that
was custom created for pairing with a particular number of touch panel
conductors.” Spec. 9,11. 4—6.
In sum, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“module” is encompassed by both dictionary definitions offered in this
appeal. We are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding Nakamura
discloses a “modular connector” under this broadest reasonable
interpretation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
6
Appeal 2016-001484
Application 14/205,781
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7