Ex Parte Chang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12822828 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/822,828 06/24/2010
65358 7590 08/23/2016
WPAT, PC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS
8230 BOONE BL VD. SUITE 405
VIENNA, VA 22182
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CHIN-FU CHANG
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.
67607-006 6578
EXAMINER
WANG, QUAN ZHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHIN-FU CHANG
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
Technology Center 2600
Before, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems and methods for scanning control
of a capacitive touch panel. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for scanning control of a capacitive touch
panel,
wherein said capacitive touch panel comprises a plurality of
first axial conductive strips and a plurality of second axial
conductive strips, said plurality of first axial conductive strips
and second axial conductive strips intersect with each other and
are electrically isolated;
wherein said plurality of first axial conductive strips are parallel
to each other and comprises a first group of a first number of
said first axial conductive strips that are adjacent to each other
and a second group of a second number of said first axial
conductive strips that are adjacent to each other, said first
number and said second number are natural numbers equal to or
greater than three; and
wherein said plurality of second axial conductive strips are
parallel to each other and comprises a first group of said first
number of said second axial conductive strips that are adjacent
to each other and a second group of said second number of said
second axial conductive strips that are adjacent to each other;
said system comprising:
2
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
a driving unit, simultaneously driving said first group of said
first axial conductive strips; and
a first detecting unit, detecting only one of said first group of
said first axial conductive strips;
wherein said driving unit further simultaneously drives said
second group of said first axial conductive strips of said
capacitive touch panel, and said first detecting unit further
detects only one of said second group of said first axial
conductive strips.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Speeter
Morag et al.
Peng et al.
us 5,237,879
US 2004/0095333 Al
US 8,144,125 B2
REJECTIONS
Aug. 24, 1993
May 20, 2004
Mar. 27, 2012
(filed March 30, 2006)
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for indefiniteness. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.)
Claims 1--4, 8-10, 14--17, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Applicant's
Admitted Prior Art ("Admitted Prior Art"), Peng, and Speeter. (Final Act. 3,
Ans. 3.)
Claims 5-7, 11-13, 18-20, and 24--26 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of the Admitted Prior
Art, Peng, Speeter, and Morag. (Final Act. 18, 24--26, Ans. 3.)
1 Claims 24--26 are subject to this rejection, even though the first sentence of
Section 6 of the Final Action, which sets forth this rejection, does not list
3
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Appellant has not identified any errors in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 22, and 23 for indefiniteness. (Br. 10-14; Ans. 2.)
Accordingly, we summarily affirm that rejection. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Obviousness
We have reviewed the Examiner's obviousness rejections in light of
Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with
Appellant's arguments, and adopt as our own: (i) the findings and reasoning
set forth by the Examiner regarding these rejections in the action from which
the appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-26) and (ii) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner regarding these rejections in the Examiner's Answer to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 2---6), and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following.
Claims 1--4, 8-10, 14-17, and 21-23
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Peng teaches
or suggests the first-detecting-unit limitations of claim 1, italicized above,
and the corresponding limitations of claim 14. (Final Act. 5---6; Br. 11; Ans.
2--4.) In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in relying on, for
these limitations, the sensing of conductive object 303 on the 5th sensor
element of the first axial conductive strips shown in, for example, Figures
8B-C in Peng. (Br. 12-13.) Appellant argues that Peng's sensing of
conductive object 303 is merely the result of detecting all sensor elements in
those claims. (Final Act. 18.) Pages twenty-four through twenty-six of the
Final Action apply this rejection to claims 24--26, and page one of the Final
Action sets forth that claims 24--26 are rejected. (See also Br. 5.)
4
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
Figures 8B-C and therefore Peng does not detect only one of said first group
of said first axial conductive strips or detect only one of said second group
of said first axial conductive strips. (Id.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Peng describes
detecting conductive objects, and for the embodiments of Figures 8B-C in
particular, detecting conductive object 303. (Ans. 3--4; Peng 19:64--20:30)
For those embodiments, Peng does not describe detecting any other object,
other than 303, and, for those embodiments, Peng does not describe
detecting any sensor, other than the sensor in contact with conductive object
303. (See e.g., Peng 19:64--20:30.) Appellant has not presented any
persuasive evidence or argument indicating that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would nevertheless recognize that Peng in the embodiments of Figures SB-
C would detect any conductive strip, other than a strip contacting conductive
object 303. (Br. 12-13.) Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded that
the cited teachings in Peng satisfy the first-detecting-unit-limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim l and of claims
2--4, 8-10, 14--17, and 21-23, not separately argued.
Claims 5-7, 11-13, 18-20, and 24-26
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 5-7, 11-13, 18-20,
and 24--26 as for claim 1. (Br. 14.) Accordingly, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 5-7, 11-13, 18-20, and 24--26.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-26.
5
Appeal2015-000485
Application 12/822,828
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