Ex Parte Fasshauer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

12743676 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
12/743,676 02/25/2011 Peter Fasshauer 68354.225210 5966
86528 7590 03/02/2018
Slay den Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
FLORES, ROBERTO W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
trosson @ sgbfirm.com
patent @ sgbfirm. com
dallen @ sgbfirm. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER FASSHAUER
Appeal 2016-008204
Application 12/743,676
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-008204
Application 12/743,676
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a sensor system in which on the
base of electric near-fields the approach or movement of typically a hand or
a finger is detected, and, from this, information is derived [that] can be used
for controlling switching actions or for recognizing a spatial gesture” (Spec.
1:5-9).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis added).
1. A circuit arrangement for generating an output signal
correlated with an approach based on changes of the dielectric
properties of the environment of a sensor electrode, the circuit
arrangement comprising:
a sensor electrode that at least partly juxtaposed with an
observation area;
a microcontroller outputting a square-wave voltage;
a voltage attenuation circuit external to said
microcontroller receiving the square-wave voltage, the voltage
attenuation circuit being directly connected between an output
of the microcontroller and ground and adjusting a level of the
square-wave voltage outputted by the microcontroller, wherein
the voltage attenuation comprises an output connected with the
sensor electrode via a charging resistor; and
a field-effect transistor (FET) operating as an impedance
converter comprising a gate terminal directly connected with
the sensor electrode and via the charging resistor with the
output of the voltage attenuation circuit, wherein the charging
resistor is dimensioned such that during a semi-period of the
square-wave voltage an almost complete charge and discharge
at the gate terminal of the FET occurs.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Peter (US 5,801,340, iss. Sept.
2
Appeal 2016-008204
Application 12/743,676
1, 1998), Klopfer (US 2008/0238444 Al, pub. Oct. 2, 2008), and Taylor (US
5,508,700, iss. Apr. 16, 1996).
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Peter, Klopfer, Taylor, and W. G. Oldham, Review of
Charging and Discharging in RC Circuits (an enlightened approach) (2001)
(“Oldham”).
The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Peter, Klopfer, Taylor, and Senk (US 5,760,715, iss. June 2,
1998).
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Peter, Klopfer, Taylor, and Jung (US 7,605,805 B2, iss. Oct.
20, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Peter and Klopfer.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Peter discloses all the limitations of claim 1
except “Peter does not appear to specifically disclose a circuit arrangement
includes a field-effect transistor; a microcontroller outputting a square-wave
voltage, and a voltage attenuation circuit external to said microcontroller,
receiving the square-wave voltage” (Final Act. 7). The Examiner then finds
Klopfer’s capacitive proximity switch includes a microprocessor 16 and
square-wave output 28 (Fig. 4), thus teaching or suggesting a
microcontroller outputting a square wave voltage {id.). Therefore, the
Examiner contends, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled
artisan at the time of the invention “to incorporate the microcontroller
3
Appeal 2016-008204
Application 12/743,676
disclosed by Klopfer into Vcc node of Peter” (Ans. 3). Additionally, the
Examiner finds Klopfer’s resistor 23 and current-limiting resistor 20, which
receives the square-wave voltage 28 from the microcontroller 26 (Fig. 4),
teach and suggest a voltage attenuation circuit, external to the
microcontroller, receiving the square wave voltage (Final Act. 7-8).
Further, according to the Examiner, Klopfer’s paragraph 47 teaches
semiconductor switches can be used as field-effect transistors (Final Act. 8).
The Examiner then finds Taylor specifically discloses a capacitance
sensitive switch unit including a charging resistor dimensioned so that
during a semi-period of the square-wave voltage an almost complete
charge/discharge occurs at the FET gate terminal (Final Act. 9). Fastly, the
Examiner finds “Klopfer teaches that resistors 23 and 20 are connected
directly to microprocessor 26 and connected to ground via capacitors 7 or
via transistors and resistor 29 as depicted in figure 4. The Office
understand^] that resistors are not connected directly to ground. However,
the resistors are connected to ground via other elements (ex. resistor 29). In
addition, Peter clearly depicts in figure 4b that resistors Rl, R2 and R3 are
connected directly to ground (see resistor R2 and GND) (Ans. 4). Further,
the Examiner finds “Peter teaches all the limitations stated above with the
exception of connecting directly to the output of the microcontroller.
However, Peter teaches a voltage Vcc connected directly to the voltage
attenuation Rl, R2 and R3, where the resistors are capable to adjust a level
of the voltage Vcc as shown in figure 4b” (Ans. 2-3).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Klopfer’s resistors
20 and 23 are considered a voltage attenuation circuit as claimed because
they are not directly connected between the output of microprocessor 25
4
Appeal 2016-008204
Application 12/743,676
(microcontroller) and ground, as required by the claims (App. Br. 8). We
agree with Appellants because the proposed incorporation of Klopfer’s
microcontroller at the VCC node of Peter would result at best in R1 being
directly connected to the microcontroller and R2 being directly connected to
ground. Accordingly, the proposed combination would not result in Peter’s
attenuation circuit (Rl, R2, and R3) being directly connected to between the
microcontroller and ground.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Because Appellants
have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need
not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments. Therefore, for the above
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims
1, 17, 18, and 21, which include substantially the same limitations, and
claims 2-16, 19, and 20, dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5