Mickelsen, Jeremy et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 4, 201914465725 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/465,725 08/21/2014 Jeremy Mickelsen P2013-08-19/290110.593 5245 70336 7590 11/04/2019 Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110) 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER SHERMAN, STEPHEN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/04/2019 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEREMY MICKELSEN and CHRISTOPHER BURNS Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 Technology Center 2600 BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, ADAM J. PYONIN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DISH Technologies L.L.C. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “using the capacitive values of the elements of the device to determine selection and shadow regions.” Spec. 1:5–7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: distinguishing between contact regions and shadow regions on a surface of a capacitive input pad by comparing capacitance values with two separate, independent thresholds, the distinguishing including: receiving an indication of a thumb being placed on the surface of a capacitive input pad, the capacitive input pad having a plurality of sensing cells arranged near the surface in a closely-spaced physical configuration; receiving a respective capacitive value associated with each respective sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells, the capacitive value having a defined relation to a proximity of the thumb to the respective sensing cell; comparing the capacitive value for each sensing cell of the plurality of sensing cells to a first fixed threshold value and to a second fixed threshold value, the first and second threshold values being independent of the capacitive values of the plurality of sensing cells; storing the results of the comparison; and identifying from the results of the comparison: a first set of the plurality of sensing cells, each sensing cell of the first set having a capacitive value greater than the first fixed threshold value, a second set of the plurality of sensing cells, each sensing cell of the second set having a capacitive value greater than the first fixed threshold value and less than the second fixed threshold value, the second fixed threshold value being greater than the first fixed threshold value, and a third set of the plurality of sensing cells, each sensing cell of the third set having a capacitive value less than the first fixed threshold; and Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 3 outputting an indication of the first set of the plurality of sensing cells, the second set of the plurality of sensing cells and the third set of the plurality of sensing cells. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ording US 2007/0174788 A1 July 26, 2007 Atkins US 2008/0278455 A1 Nov. 13, 2008 Sleeman US 2010/0289754 A1 Nov. 18, 2010 Badaye US 2014/0002407 A1 Jan. 2, 2014 Gossweiler III US 2014/0085220 A1 Mar. 27, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 7, 15–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sleeman and Badaye. Final Act. 4–11. Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sleeman, Badaye, and Gossweiler. Final Act. 11–12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sleeman, Badaye, and Atkins. Final Act. 12–13. Claims 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sleeman, Ording, and Badaye. Final Act. 13–17. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sleeman, Ording, Badaye, and Gossweiller. Final Act. 17–18. OPINION Claims 1–5, 7, 15–17, 19, and 20 as obvious over Sleeman and Badaye The Examiner finds Sleeman and Badaye teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5–6. Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 4 The Examiner finds Sleeman does not teach “the first and second threshold values being independent of the capacitive values of the plurality of sensing cells,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Badaye teaches this recitation of claim 1, finding Badaye teaches a touch orientation calculating apparatus that measures a touch data and compares the capacitive value for each sensing cell with fixed threshold values (Fig. 11 and Paras 0031 and 0064. Although one baseline value is discussed in cited paragraphs, an additional value would be required to determine the cross hatched portions as shown in Fig. 11.). Final Act. 6. Among other arguments, Appellant presents the following principal arguments: While the value of the “primary node” in Sleeman may arguably be considered a second “threshold value” (with the first threshold value being the null/in detect threshold), it is not a “fixed threshold value”, but instead based on the actual value of the sensing node having the highest signal value. This is a dynamic value, that depends on the value of a particular sensing node, in order to distinguish between multiple simultaneous touches. Appeal Br. 11. “[O]nly one baseline value is used to determine the pixel values in Sleeman [sic], including those of the cross hatched pixels in Figure 11.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Badaye ¶ 64). “[T]here is no discussion in Badaye at all regarding distinguishing three separate regions of touch in Fig. 11, much less regarding an additional baseline value being required.” Appeal Br. 12. In response, the Examiner explains “Figure 11 [of Badaye] shows 3 crosshatched regions, which utilizes the same ‘techniques,’ however, would not be achievable with the use of only one baseline value.” Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 5 In reply, Appellant argues “the same baseline value could and would be used for the three crosshatched regions in Figure 11 of Badaye and there is no indication the same baseline value is not used.” Reply Br. 3. [I]f one were to use a different baseline value for the different sense elements in the three crosshatched regions in Figure 11 of Badaye, it would result in different capacitance difference values for a same degree of touch on the different sense elements. This would make the touch data inaccurate for determination of the centroid position of the touch. Reply Br. 3. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Badaye discloses FIG. 11 illustrates the touch orientation calculator calculating eigenvalues and eigenvectors to determine a touch orientation according to one embodiment. In this embodiment, the same sensing, finger detection, and edge detection (touch outline) techniques described above may be used. For example, the touch orientation calculator 120 determines a centroid position of the touch and determines the outline of the touch. The touch orientation calculator 120 calculates two-dimensional moments of inertia and products of inertia of the touch data within the touch outline. The moments of inertia and products of inertia characterize a distribution of the touch data. The touch orientation calculator 120 calculates eigenvalues and eigenvectors of an inertia tensor of the moments of inertia and products of inertia. The touch orientation calculator 120 calculates the touch orientation with respect to a first axis from the eigenvector affiliated with the largest eigenvalue. In a further embodiment, the touch orientation calculator 120 can derive the minor axis length from the smallest eigenvalue, and the major axis length from the largest eigenvalue. Badaye ¶ 82. Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 6 Thus, we agree with Appellant that Badaye describes the use of one baseline value so that the centroid position of the touch, as well as the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, may be accurately determined. See Badaye ¶ 82; see also Appeal Br. 12 and Reply Br. 3. Thus, the single baseline value in Badaye does not constitute “first and second threshold values” as recited in claim 1. In addition, we recognize that Figure 11 of Badaye depicts three different cross-hatched regions. To the extent that the boundaries between these regions define first and second thresholds (boundary values), such thresholds are not “independent of the capacitive values of the plurality of sensing cells” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1 because such boundary values depend on the values of the sensing cells. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5 and 7, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 15 recites “the first and second fixed threshold values being independent of the capacitive values of the plurality of sensing cells.” We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 for the same reasons as for claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, which depend from claim 15. The remaining rejections The Examiner’s remaining rejections do not cure the deficiency discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1. See Final Act 11– 18. Appeal 2019-001007 Application 14/465,725 7 We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8– 14, and 18 for the same reasons as claim 1. In reaching our decision, we note that claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1; claim 9 is an independent claim reciting “comparing capacitance values with two separate, independent thresholds”; claims 10–14 depend from claim 9; and claim 18 depends from claim 15. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 15– 17, 19, and 20 103 Sleeman and Badaye 1–5, 7, 15– 17, 19, and 20 6 and 18 103 Sleeman, Badaye, and Gossweiler 6 and 18 8 103 Sleeman, Badaye, and Atkins 8 9–13 103 Sleeman, Ording, and Badaye 9–13 14 103 Sleeman, Ording, Badaye, and Gossweiller 14 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation