Ex Parte Yilmaz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201612466192 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation