Ex Parte Burns et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13647669 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/647,669 10/09/2012 David William Burns QUALP149/121325 7111
79659 7590
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP - QUAL
Attn: QUAL
P.O. Box 70250
Oakland, CA 94612-0250
EXAMINER
KHAN, MEHMOOD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WILLIAM BURNS, DANIEL FELNHOFER,
and
DONALD JOHN ELLOWAY
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—18 and 20—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “display devices, including but not
limited to display devices that incorporate touch screens” (Spec. 11). The
display device includes a sensor array that “may be a touch sensor array,
such as a projected capacitive touch (PCT) sensor array” (Abstract). A
“mobile device may be configured to determine whether one or more sensor
signals from the sensor array indicate an ear gesture and/or the presence of
an ear” (id. ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
scanning a sensor array;
detecting array capacitances of the sensor array;
analyzing the array capacitances;
determining that a pattern of array capacitance values in the array
capacitances indicates the presence of an ear;
determining whether the pattern of array capacitance values matches
previously acquired ear pattern data; and
invoking a device operation if the pattern of array capacitance values
matches the previously-acquired ear pattern data.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5 and 7—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Futter (US 2010/0149126 Al; June 17, 2010)
and Cormier, (US 2014/0002406 Al; Jan. 2, 2014).
The Examiner rejected claims 13—16, 18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Futter and Shusaku (US 2013/0259221
Al; Oct. 3,2013).
2
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 8
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Futter and Cormier
teach or suggest the steps of determining whether a pattern of array
capacitance values matches previously acquired data and if so, invoking a
device operation, as claimed (App. Br. 15—21). Specifically, Appellants
contend Futter does not distinguish an ear from any other type of object;
rather Futter’s paragraph 72 is based upon an assumption that a user object
brought near a touch screen is likely to be an ear (App. Br. 17). Appellants
further contend Cormier also does not teach or suggest determining the
pattern array capacitance values indicate a presence of an ear and
determining whether the pattern of array capacitance values matches
previously acquired ear pattern data (App. Br. 18). Additionally, Appellants
contend, Cormier detects “changes of self-capacitance along an entire
column electrode of a touch panel” and not at individual sensor pixels,
which allows for detecting fine details, as does the present invention
(emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 19-20). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 2—
7). We provide the following for clarity. The Examiner relies on Futter for
disclosing all the features of Appellants’ claims 1 and 8 except Futter does
“not explicitly disclose determining whether the pattern of array capacitance
values matches previously . . . acquired ear pattern data; and invoking a
device operation if the pattern of array capacitance values matches the
previously acquired ear pattern data” (Ans. 4—5). The Examiner relies on
Cormier for these missing features (see Cormier ^[80—91 (a proximity of a
body part is detected and analyzed to determine if predetermined touch
3
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
threshold capacitance is used to indicate a suitable proximity of a body part,
the “‘proximity’ signal is . . . utilized to trigger a particular desired result”
(Cormier |91; Final Act. 1—5). Further, as the Examiner finds, the claims do
not require distinguishing one type of user object for another as Appellants
assert (App. Br. 16). Rather the claims require only that pattern data be
compared to previously acquired pattern data and can include body parts as
taught by Cormier or an ear as taught by Futter (Ans. 3).
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the
combination of Futter and Cormier (Ans. 3—4). Futter discloses that upon
detection of a user object (an ear) a loudspeaker switching application
deactivates a loudspeaker and activates an ear speaker (Futter |72) and
Cormier “clearly discloses comparison of pattern data with a previously
acquired pattern in paragraph 0091” (Ans. 4). We agree with the
Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of the claimed “device
operation,” and that Cormier teaches and suggests the device operation
according to this interpretation (Ans. 4). We also agree both Futter and
Cormier are in the same field of endeavor (Ans. 5).
As to Appellants’ arguments that Cormier’s method of detecting
changes of self-capacitance are along an entire column electrode of a touch
panel and not at individual sensor pixels, we note Appellants are arguing
limitations not found in the claims (App. Br. 19—20); the claims broadly
recite only a pattern of array capacitance values.
The Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (see KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416—18 (2007)). Therefore, we sustain
4
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and dependent
claims 2—5, 7, and 9-11 argued therewith (App. Br. 15,21).
Independent claims 13 and 22
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Futter and Shusaku teaches or suggests the limitation “determining whether
the sensor signals indicate an ear gesture, wherein the ear gesture is selected
from a group consisting of an ear swipe, an ear rotation and an ear rotation”
(App. Br. 21—26).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 8—
11). Initially we note independent claims 13 and 22 recite “determining
whether sensor signals indicate an ear gesture, wherein the ear gesture is
selected from a group consisting of an ear swipe, an ear rotation and an ear
motion.” The Examiner relies on Futter for teaching performing proximity
detection of user objects (an ear) and selectively connecting/disconnecting
an ear speaker to an audio channel from a loudspeaker in response the
proximity detection (Ans. 9). Thus, Futter does not exclude adjusting the
volume based on gain (invoking a device operation) when it is determined
the ear position (ear motion) has shifted (id.).
We also agree with the Examiner Shusaku’s Figures 3A and 3B and
paragraph 52 teach or suggest an ear that shifts positons while contacting a
phone, contrary to Appellants contentions (Ans. 10; App. Br. 24). We
further note Appellants are not arguing limitations found in claims 13 or 22,
as these claims only recite determining whether sensor signals indicate an
ear gesture, where the ear gesture can be an ear motion. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Futter and Shusaku teaches and
suggests detecting a change in ear hole position (motion of the ear) and
5
Appeal 2016-006753
Application 13/647,669
adjusting volume (invoking a device operation) based on the ear gesture
indication (Ans. 10—11).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 13
and 22, and claims 14—18, 20, and 21, and 23—26, argued therewith (App.
Br. 21,26).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—18 and 20—26 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6