Ex Parte Geaghan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 9, 2013

11093895 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BERNARD O. GEAGHAN and
BRUCE A. LESSARD
________________

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20. Specifically, claims 1-3, 5-9,
and 14-20 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Gillespie et al. (US 7,109,978 B2,
September 19, 2006) (“Gillespie”) and Roberts (US 2003/0214485 Al,
November 20, 2003) (“Roberts”).
Claim 4 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Gillespie, Roberts, and Hill (US
7,157,649 B2, January 2, 2007) (“Hill”).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Gillespie, Roberts, and
Schulz et al. (US 2002/0149572 Al, October 17, 2002) (“Schulz”).
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Gillespie, Roberts, and
Makinwa et al. (US 5,510,813, April 23, 1996) (“Makinwa”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to touch sensitive devices and, more
particularly, to methods and systems using an enhancing touch location
determination in a capacitive touch sensitive panel. Spec. 1.

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for essentially the same
reasons with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 14-20. App. Br. 9. We
therefore select claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 recites:
1. A touch sensitive device, comprising:

a capacitive touch sensor configured to generate signals
indicative of a location of a capacitively coupled
touch on a touch surface;

an error correction sensor configured to generate a signal
associated with an error in the touch location
signals, the error associated with movement of the
capacitive touch sensor; and

a processor configured to determine the touch location
based on the touch location signals and the error
signal.

App. Br. 22.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same
reasons with respect to dependent claims 7-9. App. Br. 12. We therefore
select claim 7 as representative of this group. Claim 7 recites:
7. The device of claim 1, wherein:

the capacitive touch sensor comprises an electrode layer
disposed on one side of a substrate; and

the error correction sensor comprises one or more
electrodes disposed on an opposite side of the
substrate.

App. Br. 22.

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

4
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same
reasons with respect to claims 19 and 20. App. Br. 14. We select
independent claim 19 as representative. Claim 19 recites:
19. A touch sensitive device, comprising:

means for generating touch signals associated with a change in
capacitance responsive to a capacitively coupled touch
on the touch surface;

means for generating an error signal associated with an error in
the touch signals caused by movement of the touch
surface; and

means for determining the touch location based on the touch
signals and the error signal.

App. Br. 24.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1
reciting: “a capacitive touch sensor configured to generate signals indicative
of a location of a capacitively coupled touch” and an “error correction
sensor configured to generate a signal associated with an error in the touch
location signals.” App. Br. 9-10. We therefore address the issue of whether
the Examiner so erred.

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

5
Analysis
Appellants argue that Roberts fails to teach or suggest an error
correction sensor as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10. According to
Appellants, Roberts discusses a method of calibrating a touch screen,
characterizing touch signal error associated with mechanical distortion of
the touch screen, and producing calibration parameters which are said to
characterize an error in an expected touch signal associated with
mechanical distortion. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Roberts, [0008]). Appellants
argue that the control system detects a force responsive touch signal having
the error and determines a touch location using the calibration parameters to
compensate for the error in the signal. App. Br. 11. However, argue
Appellants, Roberts fails to teach or suggest an error correction sensor that
is distinct from the touch sensor. Id. Nor, Appellants argue, is such an
error correction sensor shown or described in connection with the Figure 1
of Roberts, as cited by the Examiner. Id.
According to Appellants, Roberts teaches that the calibration
parameters are obtained by detecting output signals from the force sensors
when one or more deliberate mechanical distortions are applied to the touch
screen (but no force is externally applied to the touch surface). After
calibration and during use, the calibration parameters are used in
combination with output signals from those same force sensors to determine
touch coordinates. Id.
The Examiner responds that, as an initial matter, Roberts provide
error correction sensors which detect the mechanical distortion of the touch
screen and that any such mechanical distortion would occur in both
Gillespie and Roberts whether the touch screen device is capacitive or force
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

6
sensitive. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that the language of claim 1 does
not expressly recite that a capacitive touch sensor and an error correction
sensor are distinct from each other. Id. The Examiner finds that claim 1
expressly states “a capacitive touch sensor configured to generate signals
indicative of a location of a capacitively coupled touch on a touch surface”
and “an error correction sensor configured to generate a signal associated
with an error in the touch location signals,” but finds that the broad
language of the claim does not expressly state that the touch sensor and
error correction sensor must be distinct. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds
that a sensor can comprise both a touch sensor and an error correction
sensor integrated into one system. Ans. 14.
Appellants reply that the correction sensor is “configured to generate
a signal associated with an error in the touch location signals” and that for a
correction sensor to be able to generate such a signal, it must be distinct
from the capacitive touch sensor. Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants argue that the
location of the particular touch is determined by a processor based on both
the touch location signals and the error signal. Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. We agree with the Examiner that the broad language of claim 1 does
not preclude the possibility that the claimed “error correction sensor
configured to generate a signal associated with an error in the touch
location signals, the error associated with movement of the capacitive touch
sensor” could be a function of the “capacitive touch sensor configured to
generate signals indicative of a location of a capacitively coupled touch on
a touch surface.” Roberts teaches that “[o]ne or more deliberate mechanical
distortions are applied to the touch screen 610. The force responsive touch
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

7
signals arising from the mechanical distortion of the touch screen are
detected 620. The touch signal error associated with the mechanical
distortion is characterized 630.” Roberts, ¶ [0070]. Roberts thus teaches
that the signals arising from the touch sensors are “generat[ing] a signal
associated with an error in the touch location signals” and the signal thus
generated conveys information concerning an “error associated with
movement [mechanical distortion] of the capacitive touch sensor.” We
consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1.

Issue 2
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by failing to provide a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. App.
Br. 16 (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)). We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s Final Rejection fails to provide
the necessary rational underpinning because it fails to take into account the
relevant differences in the technical scope of Gillespie and Roberts. App.
Br. 16. According to Appellants, a person of ordinary skill reading the
teachings of Roberts would appreciate that in order to determine an X,Y
coordinate with a high degree of accuracy, highly accurate output signals
from the four force sensors will be needed, and any mechanical distortions
that change these output signals by different amounts would interfere with
the accurate determination of the X,Y coordinate. App. Br. 17.
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

8
On the other hand, argue Appellants, the touch measurement
technique of Gillespie is very different from that of Roberts, and would not
be expected to be nearly as sensitive to mechanical distortions as the
technique of Roberts. App. Br. 17. Appellants assert that Gillespie’s
device relies on mutual capacitance measured between pairs of row and
column electrodes that are part of a large matrix of row and column
electrodes distributed over the area of the touch surface. Id. Consequently,
argue Appellants, a person of ordinary skill would not expect mechanical
distortions to interfere in any significant way with the highly accurate
determination of the touch position provided by the evaluation of the large
array or profile of capacitance information associated with Gillespie’s
finely spaced row and column electrodes. App. Br. 18-19. Appellants
therefore argue that a person of ordinary skill would have no expectation
that the teachings of Roberts would have any applicability to the devices of
Gillespie. App. Br. 19.
The Examiner responds that, although Gillespie's device provides
highly accurate determination of the touch position, Gillespie is silent on
the specific structure of the touchscreen substrate or the relationship
between the chassis and the touchscreen. Ans. 17. Therefore, finds the
Examiner, Gillespie does not teach error correction when an external
mechanical distortion is brought to bear on the substrate. Id. The Examiner
finds that combining Robert’s mechanical distortion error correction sensor
into the capacitive touch screen device of Gillespie would obviously yield a
touchscreen device which can prevent any errors that may occur due to the
design variation of the touchscreen devices. Id. Consequently, the
Examiner finds, regardless of the differences in the technical scope of the
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

9
two references, the combination of the references would yield an
advantageous touchscreen device employing both capacitive touch sensors
and error correction sensors. Id.
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. “[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 418. It is by this requirement that we ensure that the Examiner’s
“common sense” reasoning is sufficiently supported by a rational
underpinning. See, e.g., In re Nouvel, 493 Fed. App’x. 85, 92 (Fed. Cir.
2012). In this instance, the Examiner has adduced two analogous prior art
references and provided a rational reason to combine them; viz., to combine
a capacitive touch sensing device (as taught by Gillespie) with an error
sensing mechanism (as taught by Roberts) to arrive at a touch sensing
device that can detect movement-induced touch error. We find that this
reasoning sufficiently satisfies the KSR requirement for a rational
underpinning to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection and we
conclude that the Examiner did not err in this respect.

B. Claim 7
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gillespie and Roberts teaches the limitations of claim 7
reciting “comprises an electrode layer disposed on one side of a substrate”
and the error correction sensor comprises “one or more electrodes disposed
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

10
on an opposite side of the substrate.” App. Br. 12. We therefore address
the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that claim 7 introduces “a substrate”, and specifies
that the capacitive touch sensor includes an electrode layer disposed on one
side of that substrate, and specifies that the error correction sensor includes
one or more electrodes disposed on an opposite side of the substrate. App.
Br. 12. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by characterizing the
conductive element 235 of Roberts as belonging to an error correction
sensor. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that the conductive element 235 is
instead part of a capacitive force sensor, which serves as a touch sensor for
Roberts, and not as an error correction sensor. Id. (citing Roberts, ¶¶
[0043]-[0045]). Appellants repeat their argument, supra, viz., that neither
Gillespie nor Roberts has been shown to teach an error correction sensor
distinct from a touch sensor. App. Br. 13.
Appellants argue further that the Examiner’s findings ignore the
requirement that the electrode layer from the touch sensor and the electrode
from the error correction sensor are disposed on opposite sides of the same
substrate. App. Br. 13. Appellants maintain that the substrate 24 of
Gillespie does not correspond to the touch surface 210 of Roberts, but
rather lies beneath an insulating layer 36, which serve as Gillespie's touch
surface. Id. (citing Gillespie, col. 11, ll. 36-38).
Appellants argue further that the Examiner’s findings fail to address
the requirement that the one or more electrodes of the error correction
sensor is or are “disposed on” an opposite side of the substrate. App. Br.
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

11
13. Appellants contend that conductive element 235 of Roberts is not
“disposed on” any side of the cited touch surface 210. Id.
The Examiner responds that Roberts, in Figs. 1 and
2, explicitly depicts that the capacitive force sensors, which also serve as
error correction sensors, are disposed on the bottom side of the touch
surface/substrate (210). Ans. 15. The Examiner also finds that Gillespie
teaches a capacitive touch sensor comprising a conductive trace/electrode
layer located above a substrate 24. Id. (citing Gillespie, Fig. 2D). The
Examiner therefore finds that the combination of Gillespie and Roberts
teaches or suggests that the electrode layer from the touch capacitive sensor
and the electrode from the error correction sensor to be disposed on
opposite sides of the same substrate. Ans. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We have related,
supra, our finding that the broad language of claim 1 does not preclude a
touch sensor from also acting as an error sensor, as characterized in the
claim. We agree with the Examiner that Roberts teaches touch sensors
positioned beneath a substrate and that Gillespie teaches a touch sensor
array comprising conductive traces on opposing sides of a substrate. See
Roberts, Figs. 1 and 2; Gillespie, Fig. 2. Gillespie further teaches that:
[T]he present invention comprises a substrate 24 including a
first set of conductive traces 26 disposed on a top surface 28
thereof and run in a first direction to comprise row positions of
the touch sensor array 22. A second set of conductive traces 30
are disposed on a bottom surface 32 thereof and run in a second
direction preferably orthogonal to the first direction to form the
column positions of the touch sensor array 22. The first and
second set of conductive traces 26 and 30 are alternately in
contact with periodic sense pads 34….

Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

12
Gillespie, col. 10, ll. 56-64. Gillespie thus teaches force sensors (which
Roberts teaches may also act as error sensors) positioned on opposite sides
of a substrate 24. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in
finding that the combination of Gillespie and Roberts teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations of claim 7.

C. Claim 19
Issue
Appellants argue that claim 19 is worded in a “means-plus-function”
format and that the Examiner erred by failing to identify where in the
asserted references all functions recited in Appellants’ means-plus-function
elements can be found. App. Br. 15. We therefore address the issue of
whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 19 fails
to identify the structure, material, or acts in the asserted references that
correspond to the means that perform the recited functions in the means-
plus-function elements of claim 19. App. Br. 15. Appellants contend that
the “means for generating touch signals” and the “means for generating an
error signal” are not identified in the prior art references in a manner that
corresponds to the language of the limitations. Id. Appellants argue that
the Examiner failed in particular to identify a “means for generating an
error signal” that is distinct from the means for generating touch signals and
that a finding of obviousness cannot be established based on such an
allegedly incomplete analysis. Id.
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

13
The Examiner responds that all of the limitations of claims 1 and 19
are substantially similar except for the “means for generating touch signals”
and the “means for generating an error signal.” Ans. 16. The Examiner
finds that claim 1 expressly describes “means for generating touch signals”
as “a capacitive touch sensor,” which Gillespie teaches, and that the “means
for generating error signals” as “an error correction sensor,” which is taught
by Roberts. Ans. 16. The Examiner therefore finds that the combination of
Gillespie and Roberts established in the rejection of claim 1 appropriately
teaches the substantially similar limitations of claim 19. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. We have related, supra, our reasoning
as to why the combination of Roberts and Gillespie teaches the limitations
of claim 1. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Gillespie teaches a
capacitive touch sensor and that Roberts teaches using touch sensors as
error sensors for “characterizing touch signal error associated with [a]
mechanical distortion.” See Gillespie, Abstract; Roberts, Abstract. We
therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 19.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
Appeal 2011-000104
Application 11/093,895

14

AFFIRMED

tj