TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

15062260 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020)

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.
15/062,260 03/07/2016 George P. Reitsma TI-75912 7343
23494 7590 06/22/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
REISNER, NOAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2852
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE P. REITSMA, PAULO GUSTAVO RAYMUNDO
SILVA, SUMANT BAPAT, and RICHARD D. HENDERSON
____________

Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15–17, and 19.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 7, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action dated Jan. 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Sept.
17, 2018, as amended Jan. 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
dated Mar. 26, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed May 28, 2019 (“Reply
Brief”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Claims 6, 12, and 18 are canceled. Appeal Br. 13, 15, 17. Claims 8, 14,
and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to apparatus and methods for wideband
capacitive sensing using sense (capacitance) signal modulation, which can
be adapted for single ended or differential capacitive sensing. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6,
7; Abstract. Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A circuit suitable for capacitive sensing, comprising:
carrier generation circuitry to generate a carrier signal at a
carrier frequency;
reference circuitry to generate a reference signal;
carrier/drive signal path circuitry to drive a carrier/drive
signal out through an output node, the carrier/drive signal
useable for capacitive sensing, including:
modulation circuitry to modulate the reference
signal with the carrier signal to generate the carrier/drive
signal at the carrier frequency,
integration circuitry to integrate the carrier/drive
signal; and
drive circuitry to drive the integrated carrier/drive
signal out through the output node; and
sense signal path circuitry to receive at an input node an
up-modulated sense capacitance signal corresponding to
measured capacitance from capacitive sensing, wherein the
sense capacitance signal is up-modulated to the carrier frequency
based on the integrated carrier/drive signal, including:

according to the Examiner would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

3
trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with resistive
feedback circuitry, to generate an amplified up-modulated
sense capacitance signal, and
demodulation circuitry to demodulate the amplified
up-modulated sense capacitance signal based on the
carrier signal, generating a demodulated sense capacitance
signal.
Appeal Br. 12 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Basile US 4,646,295 Feb. 24, 1987

Heinks et al.
(“Heinks”)
US 7,479,910 B1 Jan. 20, 2009

Brasseur et al.
(“Brasseur”)
US 2009/0243633 A1 Oct. 1, 2009
Wuerstlein et al.
(“Wuerstlein”)
US 2014/0002116 A1 Jan. 2, 2014
Caldwell et al.
(“Caldwell”)
US 2015/0109157 A1 Apr. 23, 2015
Sun et al.
(“Sun”)
US 2015/0256361 A1 Sept. 10, 2015

REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brasseur in view of Wuerstlein
(“Rejection 1”). Ans. 3; Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

4
2. Claims 2, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Brasseur in view of Wuerstlein,4 Sun, Basile, and Heinks
(“Rejection 2”). Final Act. 10.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brasseur in view of Wuerstlein and Caldwell (“Rejection
3”). Final Act. 12.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions the Examiner and
Appellant advance in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections based on the fact-finding and reasoning set forth in the Answer
and Final Office Action, which we adopt as our own. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 under
§ 103 as obvious over the combination of Brasseur and Wuerstlein. In
response to the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant presents argument for the
patentability of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 as a group but does not
present separate argument for the patentability of any dependent claims.
Appeal Br. 8, 11. We select claim 1 as representative and claims 5, 7, 9–11,
13, 15, 17, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

4 Because claims 2–4 and 16 depend from independent claims rejected over
the combination of Brasseur and Wuerstlein, the rejections of claims 2–4
and 6 also must be based on this combination. We view the Examiner’s
omission of Wuerstlein from the stated rejections of claims 2–4 and 16 as
harmless error. See Ans. 3 (noting that Appellant’s arguments are directed to
the combination of Brasseur and Wuerstlein).
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

5
The Examiner determines that the combination of Brasseur and
Wuerstlein suggests a circuit satisfying the limitations of claim 1 and
concludes the combination would have rendered the claim obvious.
Ans. 4–5 (citing Brasseur, Figs. 3, 8, ¶ 43; Wuerstlein, Fig. 4).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the cited art does not teach or suggest “carrier/drive signal
path circuitry” and “sense signal path circuitry,” as recited in the claim.
Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant contends that, in contrast to the
claimed invention, which requires that the carrier/drive signal path include
“integration circuitry to integrate the carrier/drive signal,” Brasseur teaches
only integration of the sensed (measured) signals. Id. at 10; see also Reply
Br. 5 (arguing “Brasseur only teaches integrating ‘measurement values’
(within correlation receiver 216).” Appellant further contends that, unlike
Brasseur and Wuerstlein, which both teach driving the sense capacitor by a
carrier directly, in the claimed invention
the external sense capacitor is driven by an integrated
version of the carrier (integrator 433 in Figure 4), and the
sense signal received in the sense signal path is input to
trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with resistive
feedback circuitry.
Id. at 8; see also Reply Br. 3–4 (same).
Appellant further argues Brasseur does not teach or suggest sense
signal path circuitry including “trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with
resistive feedback circuitry,” as claimed. Reply Br. 6. Appellant also argues
that neither Brasseur nor Wuerstlein provides any reason to modify Brasseur
to include in the sensed signal path “trans-impedance amplifier circuitry
with resistive feedback circuitry,” as required by the claim. Appeal
Br. 10–11. In particular, Appellant contends
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

6
Brasseur/Wuerstlein provide no teaching to modify
Brasseur (really, redesign/reconstruct) to include in the
sense signal path the claimed “trans-impedance amplifier
circuitry with resistive feedback circuitry” for the express
reason that Brasseur fails to teach or suggest including in
the carrier/drive signal path “integration circuitry to
integrate the carrier/drive signal[.]”
Id. at 10–11; see also Reply Br. 6 (arguing “Wuerstlein provides no teaching
to modify Brasseur”).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection in view of the fact-finding and reasons the
Examiner provides at pages 3–5 and 7–9 of the Answer and pages 4–6 of
the Final Office Action, which a preponderance of the evidence supports.
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), Brasseur teaches a circuit suitable for
capacitance sensing (circuit 300) comprising, among other components,
carrier/drive signal path circuitry (signal path circuitry comprising
components 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 102-N, 220) to drive a carrier/drive
signal out through an output node (node 102-N), including integration
circuitry to integrate the carrier/drive signal. Brasseur, Fig. 3, ¶ 43
(disclosing that “for each electrode 102-n (n=l, . . . , N) a distinct integrator
may be used”).
As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 4), Brasseur teaches sense signal
path circuitry (signal path circuitry comprising components 220, 112-N, 304,
214) to receive at an input node (receiver 304) an up-modulated sense
capacitance signal corresponding to measured capacitance from capacitive
sensing, including amplifier circuitry (amplifier 904) to generate an
amplified up-modulated sense capacitance signal. Brasseur, Figs. 3, 8, ¶ 48
(“Before the IQ demodulator 214, the receive signal 116, 117 is filtered and
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

7
amplified by means of a band pass filter 902, an amplifier 904 and a band
pass filter 902 downstream to the amplifier.”), ¶ 51, ¶ 52.
As the Examiner also finds (Ans. 4), regarding the “trans-impedance
amplifier circuitry with resistive feedback circuitry” recitation of claim 1,
Wuerstlein discloses amplifier circuitry, which teaches that element of the
claim. Wuerstlein, Abstract, Fig. 4, ¶ 15, ¶ 44 (“[T]he transimpedance
amplifier 20 is formed by an operational amplifier 21 and a coupling
capacitance 22.”), ¶ 46 (disclosing “that a coupling resistor 40 is connected
in parallel with the coupling capacitance 22”).
The Examiner also provides a reasonable basis to evince why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Brasseur and
Wuerstlein to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ans. 5. As the Examiner
determines (Ans. 5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to replace Brasseur’s operational
amplifier 904 with Wuerstlein’s trans-impedance amplifier circuitry 20, 21,
22, 40 in order to obtain an amplifier which “has means for compensating
for a frequency response” as taught by Wuerstlein. Wuerstlein ¶ 15 (“The
evaluation circuit has a transimpedance amplifier, the transimpedance
amplifier has means for compensating for a frequency response.”). See also
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (explaining that any
need or problem known in the art can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed).
Appellant’s arguments do not reveal reversible error in the
Examiner’s factual findings and analysis in this regard.
Appellant’s contentions that “Brasseur teaches only integration of the
sensed (measured) signals” (Appeal Br. 10) and “Brasseur only teaches
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

8
integrating ‘measurement values’” (Reply Br. 5) are not persuasive because,
as the Examiner finds (Ans. 8), Appellant misinterprets and too narrowly
construes the scope of Brasseur’s disclosure. Brasseur’s teachings are not
limited to the disclosures in its preferred embodiments. See In re Susi, 440
F.2d 442, 445–46 (CCPA 1971) (explaining that disclosure of particular
preferred embodiments does not teach away from a prior art reference’s
broader disclosure); see also In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that
it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”).
Rather, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 8), Brasseur teaches that
electrodes 102-n may each have “a distinct integrator” (Brasseur ¶ 43) and
the electrodes 102-n are the output nodes that the carrier/drive signal passes
through via Brasseur’s carrier/drive signal path circuitry before the signal
reaches capacitive sensing component 220 (“Cmess”) (see Brasseur, Fig. 3
(depicting signal path circuitry comprising elements 206, 207, 208, 209, 212,
102-N, 220)). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, based on Brasseur’s
disclosure that the nodes 102-n may each contain integrators and its
depiction of the circuit in Figure 3, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably understood that Brasseur’s device includes “integration
circuitry to integrate the carrier/drive signal,” as claimed, and that Brasseur’s
circuitry is not necessarily limited to integration circuitry to integrate only
sensed/measured signals, as Appellant argues. The fact that Brasseur may
describe specific embodiments that “include[] an integrator which integrates
a certain number of measurement values” (Brasseur ¶ 42) and “the
assignment of measurement values to the integrators may be performed” (id.
¶ 43), without more, does not negate or take away from Brasseur’s broad
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

9
disclosure that each electrode 102-n may use a distinct integrator and
suggestion that the integrators integrate the carrier/signal in the manner
claimed. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (explaining that
a prior art reference’s disclosure must be considered for all that it teaches,
including “the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom”).
Appellant’s argument that Brasseur does not teach or suggest sense
signal path circuitry including “trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with
resistive feedback circuitry” (Reply Br. 6) is not persuasive because it is
premised on what Appellant contends the Brasseur reference teaches
individually, and not the combined teachings of the cited prior art references
as a whole, and what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). The Examiner does not rely solely upon Brasseur for
teaching the “trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with resistive feedback
circuitry” element of the claim.
Rather, the Examiner relies principally upon Wuerstlein for teaching
that claim element. In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 5, 9),
Wuerstlein teaches trans-impedance amplifier circuitry with resistive
feedback circuitry and that trans-impedance amplifiers are useful as
amplifiers with built-in means for compensating for frequency response, and
that signal amplification is independently useful in order to aid in signal
detection. Wuerstlein, Abstract, Fig. 4 (items 21, 40), ¶ 15.
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

10
Appellant’s contentions that “Brasseur/Wuerstlein provide no
teaching to modify Brasseur” (Appeal Br. 10–11) and “Wuerstlein provides
no teaching to modify Brasseur” (Reply Br. 6) are not persuasive because, as
previously discussed above, the Examiner does provide a reasonable basis,
which a preponderance of the evidence in the record supports, to evince why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of
Brasseur and Wuerstlein to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ans. 5, 9.
Appellant’s disagreement as to the Examiner’s factual findings and reasons
for combining the references, without more, is insufficient to establish
reversible error. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d
1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere statements of disagreement . . . as to
the existence of factual disputes do not amount to a developed argument.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7,
9–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combination of Brasseur and Wuerstlein.
Rejections 2 and 3
In response to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 16 under
§ 103 as obvious over the combination of Brasseur, Sun, Basile, and Heinks
(Final Act. 10–12) and the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under § 103 as
obvious over the combination of Brasseur and Caldwell (Final Act. 12–13),
Appellant does not present any new or additional substantive arguments.
Rather, Appellant relies on the same arguments previously discussed and
presented above in response to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 2.
Thus, based on the fact-finding and reasoning the Examiner provides,
and for principally the same reasons we discuss above for affirming the
Appeal 2019-004709
Application 15/062,260

11
Examiner’s Rejection 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3,
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Brasseur,
Sun, Basile, and Heinks (Rejection 2) and the Examiner’s rejection of claim
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Brasseur and
Caldwell (Rejection 3).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 7, 9–11,
13, 15, 17,
19
103 Brasseur,
Wuerstlein
1, 5, 7, 9–11,
13, 15, 17,
19

2, 3, 16 103 Brasseur,
Wuerstlein, Sun,
Basile, Heinks
2, 3, 16
4 103 Brasseur,
Wuerstlein,
Caldwell
4

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7, 9–11,
13, 15–17,
19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv).
AFFIRMED