Ex Parte Yilmaz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12466192 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/466,192 05/14/2009
12323 7590 08/02/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Esat Yilmaz
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.
080900.0157 5310
EXAMINER
LI, LIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ESAT YILMAZ and HARALD PHILIPP
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, 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, 5, 7-9, 26-34, and 36-51, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 2--4, 6, 10-25, and 35 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Atmel Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates generally to a method of sensing the
presence of a body from a change in an amount of charge present on a
capacitively charged key. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
inducing charge onto a capacitively charged key using a
drive signal during a drive part of a measurement cycle;
transferring, during a signal measurement part of the
measurement cycle, charge induced on the key during the drive
part of the measurement cycle to a signal measurement capacitor;
transferring, during a first noise measurement part of the
measurement cycle, charge induced on the key due to noise to a
noise measurement capacitor; and
determining an amount of charge induced on the key due
to noise during the signal measurement part of the measurement
cycle based on an amount of charge transferred to the noise
measurement capacitor during the first noise measurement part
of the measurement cycle, resulting in a determined noise value.
References
Philipp US 6,452,514 Bl Sept. 17, 2002
Knoedgen US 2005/0134292 Al June 23, 2005
Hargreaves US 7,031,886 Bl Apr. 18, 2006
Yang et al. US 2009/0058389 Al Mar. 5, 2009
2
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 26-30, 36-43, and 50-51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Knoedgen.
2. Claims 7, 31-34, and 44--49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knoedgen,
in view of Hargreaves.
3. Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 26-30, 36-43, and 50-51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Philipp.
4. Claims 7, 31-34, and 44--48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Philipp, in
view of Hargreaves.
5. Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Philipp, in view of Hargreaves,
and further in view of Yang.
Issues on Appeal
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief2 present us with the
following dispositive issues: 3
1. Does Knoedgen teach or suggest "determining an amount
of charge induced on the key due to noise during the
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Mar. 12, 2014,
"Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 12, 2014, "Appeal Br."),
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 16, 2014, "Ans."), and the original
Specification (filed May 14, 2009, "Spec.").
3 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
signal measurement part of the measurement cycle based
on an amount of charge transferred to the noise
measurement capacitor during the first noise
measurement part of the measurement cycle, resulting in
a determined noise value," as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9,
36, and 50?
2. Does Philipp teach or suggest "determining an amount of
charge induced on the key due to noise during the signal
measurement part of the measurement cycle based on an
amount of charge transferred to the noise measurement
capacitor during the first noise measurement part of the
measurement cycle, resulting in a determined noise
value," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 9, 36, and 50?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Figures 4D and 4E of Knoedgen teach
determining an amount of charge induced on a key due to noise during a
signal measurement part of a measurement cycle based on an amount of
charge transferred to a noise measurement capacitor during a first
measurement part of the measurement cycle. Final Act. 9; Ans. 4. While
the Examiner concedes Figures 4A-4F of Knoedgen fail to explicitly
disclose that the amount of charge transferred to the noise measurement
capacitor results is a determined noise value, the Examiner finds Figure 7B
4
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
of Knoedgen teaches a read-out system that reads a determined noise value
during a first noise measurement part of a measurement cycle. Final Act. 9-
10; Ans. 4--5 (citing Knoedgen i-f 55). The Examiner further finds, at the
time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Knoedgen to design a read-out system that
determines an amount of charge induced on a key due to noise during a
signal measurement part of a measurement cycle based on an amount of
charge transferred to a noise measurement capacitor during a first
measurement part of the measurement cycle, resulting in a determined noise
value. Final Act. 10; Ans. 5.
Appellants argue Knoedgen fails to teach or suggest "determining an
amount of charge induced on the key due to noise during the signal
measurement part of the measurement cycle ... resulting in a determined
noise value," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. More
specifically, Appellants argue Knoedgen teaches providing an output
measurement (i.e., Vout) representing both a signal and noise because
Knoedgen teaches Vout represents a summation of charges of storage
capacitors C1 and C2, which capture both signal and noise. Id. Thus, as
argued by Appellants, Knoedgen' s Vout is neither a determination of an
amount of charge induced on a key due to noise during a signal
measurement part of a measurement cycle, nor a determined noise value. Id.
Further, as also argued by Appellants, the Examiner's proposed modification
of the circuit disclosed in Figures 4A-4F of Knoedgen based on the circuits
disclosed in Figures 6-7B ofKnoedgen does not cure Knoedgen's
deficiency because the additionally identified figures do not disclose
outputting a determined noise value. Appeal Br. 13-14.
5
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we agree
with Appellants that Knoedgen's storage of a charge in capacitor CD, which
represents a summation of charges stored in capacitors C1 and C2, fails to
determine an amount of charge stored in either capacitor Cn or CT2 that is
due to noise. See Knoedgen i-f 48. As explained in paragraph 48 of
Knoedgen, the charges of C1 and C2 are summed on capacitor CD "thus
generating an output voltage Vout which is nearly the double of the single
voltages appearing across C1 and C2." Id. Thus, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner erred in: ( 1) finding Knoedgen teaches or suggests
"determining an amount of charge induced on the key due to noise during
the signal measurement part of the measurement cycle ... resulting in a
determined noise value," as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly
recited in independent claims 9, 36, and 50; and (2) concluding independent
claims 1, 9, 36, and 50 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Knoedgen.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, 36, and 50 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Knoedgen. We also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 5, 7-8, 26-34, 37--49, and 51,
which variously depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims.
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Figure 5A of Philipp teaches determining an
amount of charge induced on a key due to noise during a signal
measurement part of a measurement cycle based on an amount of charge
transferred to a noise measurement capacitor during a first measurement part
6
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
of the measurement cycle. Final Act. 23; Ans. 13. While the Examiner
concedes Figure 5E of Philipp fails to explicitly disclose that the amount of
charge transferred to the noise measurement capacitor results in a
determined noise value, the Examiner finds Figure 4A of Philipp teaches a
measurement unit that determines an amount of a noise value stored in a
capacitor. Final Act. 23; Ans. 13 (citing Philipp col. 8, 11. 50-67). The
Examiner further finds, at the time of the invention, it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a measurement
unit to connect with a capacitor to determine an amount of charge induced
on a key due to noise during a signal measurement part of a measurement
cycle based on an amount of charge transferred to a noise measurement
capacitor during a first noise measurement part of the measurement cycle,
resulting in a determined noise value as taught by Philipp. Final Act. 23-24;
Ans. 13-14.
Appellants argue Philipp fails to teach or suggest "an amount of
charge transferred to the noise measurement capacitor during the first noise
measurement part of the measurement cycle, resulting in a determined noise
value," as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 18. More specifically,
Appellants argue Philipp fails to disclose a capacitor that stores a noise
charge because neither capacitor 505 of Figure 5A, nor capacitor 405 of
Figure 4A, stores a noise charge. Appeal Br. 17-18. Thus, as argued by
Appellants, Philipp fails to teach or suggest an amount of charge transferred
to a noise measurement capacitor that results in a determined noise value.
Appeal Br. 18.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we agree
that Philipp fails to teach or suggest transferring an amount of charge due to
7
Appeal2015-002675
Application 12/466, 192
noise to either capacitor 505 or capacitor 405. Instead, Philipp discloses
capacitor 405 transfers a cancellation signal to a charge integrator 402 so as
to reduce the voltage (i.e., charge) buildup on the charge integrator 402, and
further discloses capacitor 505 performs a similar function. See Philipp
col. 7, 11. 7-14; col. 8, 11. 56-58. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner also erred in: (1) finding Philipp teaches or suggests "an amount
of charge transferred to the noise measurement capacitor during the first
noise measurement part of the measurement cycle, resulting in a determined
noise value," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 9, 36, and 50; and (2) concluding independent claims 1,
9, 36, and 50 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Philipp.
Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, 36, and 50 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Philipp. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections
of dependent claims 5, 7-8, 26-34, 37--49, and 51, which variously depend
from one of the aforementioned independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-9, 26-34, and
36-51under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
8