Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

12344425 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

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.
12/344,425 12/26/2008 Craig T. BROWN 82247960 6145
22879
HP Tnr
7590 08/01/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
ZHAI, KYLE
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG T. BROWN and PAUL J. DOCZY
Appeal 2017-0026121
Application 12/344,4252
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2013-000219, decided March 25,
2015, in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15.
Appellants and Appellants’ counsel are reminded of their duty to inform the
Board of related appeals. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(ii) (2015). This duty
was neglected by Appellants’ counsel in this appeal. See App. Br. 1
(asserting “[tjhere are no related interferences or appeals to the present
patent application”).
2 Appellants identify Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP, which is
a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett Packard Enterprise with Enterprise DC
Holdings LLC as the general or managing partner, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002612
Application 12/344,425
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants invented a method of having “a processor detect[] a
person’s finger moving across an unrendered portion of a touch-sensitive
display. As a result of detecting the finger moving,... the processor
caus[es] data to be rendered as a virtual keyboard image on the display.”
Spec., Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by a touch-sensitive display, user touch across and
over an unrendered portion of the touch-sensitive display; and
as a result of detecting the user touch, a processor causing data
to be rendered as a virtual input device image on a display,
wherein the unrendered portion of the touch-sensitive display is
underneath a bezel separate from the touch-sensitive display,
the touch-sensitive display detecting the user touch across and
over the unrendered portion through the bezel.
2
Appeal 2017-002612
Application 12/344,425
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over King et al. (US 2006/0238517 Al, published Oct. 26,
2006 (hereinafter “King”)) and Garside et al. (US 2006/0209040 Al,
published Sept. 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Garside”)). Final Act. 5—19.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds King’s touch sensitive bezel
teaches or suggests wherein the unrendered portion of the touch-sensitive
display is underneath a bezel separate from the touch-sensitive display, the
touch-sensitive display detecting the user touch through the bezel. Final
Act. 6—7 (citing King || 54, 63, 93, 110, Figs. 4, 10); see also Ans. 4—8
(citing, e.g., King || 50, 51, Figs. 5, 13A, 13C, 19).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because claim 1 is limited to
an embodiment in which the touch-sensitive display includes an outer
portion that lies beneath a bezel separate from the display, and in which the
touch-sensitive display, not the bezel, detects user touch through the bezel.
See App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. 112). Appellants argue that the cited teachings
of King relate to embodiments in which either the bezel itself, rather than the
display, senses user touch, or in which the bezel is part of the display rather
than a separate component. See App. Br. 4—6 (citing, e.g., King || 63, 94,
98, Figs. 5, 13A, 13C); see also Reply Br. 1—3 (citing, e.g., King || 3, 14,
50,51, 110, Figs. 4, 19).
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. We highlight two
illustrative embodiments of King cited by the Examiner that share
3
Appeal 2017-002612
Application 12/344,425
significant similarities with the claimed invention, but that have gaps the
Examiner has not adequately addressed.
The first embodiment features components of electronic device 110
that include capacitive sensor array 220—underneath touch sensitive bezel
120—to acquire touch data. See Ans. 5 (citing King, Figs. 4—5). In this
embodiment “[t]he capacitive sensor array 220 is . . . positioned on the
housing . . . and is positioned substantially around the perimeter of the
display 210 so that the capacitive sensor array 220 forms part of a bezel for
the display 210.” King | 63 (italics added). This teaching supports
Appellants’ argument that in King’s Figure 5 “the touch-sensitive circuitry is
the bezel; ... the display itself does not detect user touch . . . through the
bezel.” App. Br. 4.
The Examiner finds that “capacitive sensor array 220 (i.e., [an]
unrendered portion [of the display]) of the electronic device is underneath
the bezel.” Ans. 7. While we agree that the capacitive sensor array is
underneath the portion of the housing that forms a bezel, King specifically
teaches positioning the capacitive sensor array on the housing rather than on
a display positioned underneath the housing. The Examiner’s findings do
not show that it would have been obvious to reposition this capacitive sensor
array on the display to make the display, rather than the bezel, touch
sensitive. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the embodiment
illustrated in King’s Figure 5 does not teach or suggest the disputed
recitation.
The second embodiment, illustrated in King’s Figures 13A and 13C,
features the use of conductive pads 626, formed on printed circuit board 622,
to form touch-sensitive bezel 620. See King 193; see also Final Act. 6—7;
4
Appeal 2017-002612
Application 12/344,425
Ans. 7—8. The Examiner correctly finds that the conductive components in
King’s Figures 13A and 13C “are printed on . . . the circuit board, as
opposed to separate components.” Ans. 7. However, as Appellants
correctly highlight, “King notes that ‘the housing 602 is practically
consumed by the display 610,’ and shows in FIG. 13C how the housing 602
does not extend over the perimeter of the display 610 (i.e., the bezel).” App.
Br. 5; see also King 198, Fig. 13C. That is, Appellants show that the touch-
sensitive bezel illustrated in King’s Figures 13 A and 13C is part of the
display, not separate from the display. Furthermore, we agree with
Appellants that the housing of King’s Figure 13C, even if it forms a second
bezel, does not extend over conductive pads 626 such that they sense touch
through the housing (i.e., through a separate bezel). App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that the claimed bezel, through which the display
senses touch, is taught or suggested by “the portion of the front surface of
the housing that surrounds the display in Fig. 4 or transparent conductive
thin layers on the surface of the display in Fig. 13C.” Ans. 8. However,
King’s Figure 4 illustrates a bezel that uses the capacitive sensor array
illustrated in King’s Figure 5. See King || 25—26. The Examiner does not
show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
extend the housing in the embodiment of King illustrated in Figure 13C
(which uses conductive pads) in the same manner illustrated in Figure 4
(which uses a capacitive sensor array). Moreover, the Examiner has not
cited to persuasive evidence that King teaches or suggests the use of
transparent conductive thin layers to form a bezel over the conductive pads
of the embodiment illustrated in King’s Figure 13C. Therefore, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show that the
5
Appeal 2017-002612
Application 12/344,425
embodiment illustrated in King’s Figure 13C teaches or suggests the
disputed recitation.
The Examiner does not show that Garside cures the noted deficiency
of King. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—18, which are similarly rejected and
contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18.
REVERSED
6