Ex Parte Geaghan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2017

13713022 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 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.
13/713,022 12/13/2012 Bernard O. GEAGHAN 71320US002 2183
32692 7590 10/12/2017
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
STEPP JONES, SHAWNA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2017 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARD O. GEAGHAN
Appeal 2017-006746
Application 13/713,022
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON A. MORGAN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—28, which represent all the pending
claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, 3M Innovation Properties Company, which the
Appeal Brief identifies as both one of the identified real parties in interest
and as an affiliate of 3M Company, the other identified real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006746
Application 13/713,022
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for calibrating a digitizer
system. See Spec. 1:19—20.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of calibrating a digitizer system having a
substrate with photoluminescent indicia that uniquely
identify local areas of a substrate, with a display, the
method of calibrating the digitizer system with the display
comprising:
providing a processor communicatively coupled to
the display and an electronic sensing device, wherein the
processor is adapted to control images displayed on the
display, and wherein the processor causes a first localized
area of the display to radiate;
receiving, into the electronic sensing device,
radiation from the first localized area of the display and
radiation emitted from a photoluminescent indicium
associated with the first localized area.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robrecht et al. (US 2006/0139338 Al; June 29, 2006).
Final Act. 3—9.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding Robrecht teaches
“a method of calibrating a digitizer system . . . comprising: providing
a processor communicatively coupled to the display and an electronic
sensing device, wherein the processor is adapted to control images displayed
on the display, and wherein the processor causes a first localized area of the
display to radiate,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3—5. In particular,
2
Appeal 2017-006746
Application 13/713,022
Appellant argues there is no teaching that Robrecht’s “tablet PC is fully
assembled when the one-time calibration is carried out.” Id. at 4. According
to Appellant, Robrecht does not teach that the processer is present in the
tablet during calibration because Robrecht requires a separate calibration
system. Id. at 4—5.
Appellant does not proffer sufficient evidence to persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s findings. We therefore agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Final Act. 3—9; Ans. 2-4.
First, we note that full assembly of a tablet is not a requirement of
claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Robrecht teaches
calibration including sensing points distributed around the digitizer and
mapped to the display. Ans. 2; Final Act. 3—5 (citing Robrecht || 34, 13,
14, 18, 19). The Examiner explains that
[i]t [was] well known in the art that a processor has to be
communicatively coupled to the display and the stylus
(electronic sensing device) if during the calibration the points
detected by the stylus is mapped to the display as taught by
Robrecht. A processor would have to perform this function.
Ans. 2—3.
Appellant contests this finding, arguing that the processor that
implements the calibration in Robrecht “is not a processor that is
communicatively coupled to the display . . . since it only needs to be
communicatively coupled to the digitizer and not the display.” Reply Br. 2.
Appellant has not explained persuasively why the Examiner’s interpretation
of Robrecht is unreasonable. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
because Robrecht does not limit a processor that may serve as a calibration
system in this manner.
3
Appeal 2017-006746
Application 13/713,022
Robrecht gives an example of calibration in paragraph 34 and explains
that in calibration, some number of points distributed around the digitizer
can be sense by a detection stylus and mapped to a display. Robrecht 134.
We agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would understand that
Robrecht does not disclose a separate external calibration system is needed.
Appellant’s argument that Robrecht requires a separate calibration
system (App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 2) is speculation that is unsupported by
evidence in the record. “Argument in the brief does not take the place of
evidence in the record.” In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965)
(citing In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769, 773 (CCPA 1964)).2
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner failed to articulate reasoning for modifying
Robrecht. App. Br. 4. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of
technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner’s findings are reasonable
and we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. With respect to
independent claim 16, Appellant presents essentially the same argument as
claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2—3. For the same reasons as discussed with
respect to claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 16, and we also sustain
the rejection of the remaining pending claims, which were not argued
separately.
2 It is worth noting that 3M Innovative Properties Co. is listed both in the
correspondence address of Robrecht and as the applicant of the present
application. As such, if it were the case that Robrecht does employ an
additional processor in a separate calibration system, Applicant 3M would
be in the best position to provide evidence—as opposed to mere attorney
argument—of that alleged fact.
4
Appeal 2017-006746
Application 13/713,022
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—28 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
5