Ex Parte HOCH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13165498 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/165,498 06/21/2011 David HOCH 100100US01 3980
111408 7590 03/01/2017
Osiha T iana T T P/S»vnar>tirsi
EXAMINER
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77010
MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
hathaway@oshaliang.com
docketing@oshaliang.com
lord@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HOCH
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—8 and 10-20, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “input devices, sensor patterns, and
methods that facilitate improved usability.” (Spec. 118.) Claims 1 and 17,
reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A capacitive sensor pattern comprising:
a first plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed in a first
layer above a substrate;
a second plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed
above said substrate in an additional layer, at least one of said
second plurality of sensor electrode elements physically coupled
with at least two of said first plurality of sensor electrode
elements; and
a third plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed above
said substrate in said additional layer, at least one element of said
third plurality ohmically coupled to a single element of said first
plurality.
17. A capacitive sensor pattern comprising:
a first plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed in a first
layer, said first plurality of sensor electrode elements comprising
a plurality of receiver electrode elements, wherein a receiver
electrode element of said plurality of receiver electrode elements
1 Appellant identifies Synaptics, Inc. as the real party in interest. (See App.
Br. 1.)
2
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
comprises a central component traversed substantially
orthogonally by at least two additional components;
a second plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed in a
second layer selectively coupled to at least two of said first
plurality of sensor electrode elements; and
a third plurality of sensor electrode elements disposed in said
second layer, each element of said third plurality selectively
coupled to one sensor electrode element of said first plurality of
sensor electrode elements, such that said first and third plurality
of elements are configured to generate overlapping pixel
response functions between adjacent pixels of said capacitive
sensor pattern.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Seely et al. US 6,188,391 B1 Feb. 13,2001
XiaoPing et al. US 2007/0262962 Al Nov. 15,2007
Schwartz et al. US 2011/0148435 Al June 23, 2011
THE REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 1—8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. (See Final Act. 7—10.)
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over XiaoPing and Schwartz. (See Final Act. 11—
15.)
2 The Examiner also objects to the drawings and the Specification. (See
Non-Final Act. 3—6.) The objections are not part of this appeal.
3
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
3. Claims 3, 4, 5, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over XiaoPing, Schwartz, and Seely. (See Final Act. 15—
17.)
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the
following reasons:
1. “XiaoPing . . . fails to teach or suggest ‘at least one of said
second plurality of sensor electrode elements physically coupled with at
least two of said first plurality of sensor electrode elements,’ as recited in
claim 1,” and fails to teach or suggest an analogous limitation in claim 12.
(See App. Br. 10-12.)
2. “XiaoPing . . . fails to teach or suggest ‘wherein a receiver
electrode element of said plurality of receiver electrode elements comprises
a central component traversed substantially orthogonally by at least two
additional components,’ as is recited in Claim 17.” (See App. Br. 13—14.)
3. Also with respect to claim 17, “XiaoPing . . . fails to teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious ‘such that said first and third plurality
of elements are configured to generate overlapping pixel response functions
between adjacent pixels of said capacitive sensor pattern.’” (See App. Br.
14—15.)
4. With respect to the Examiner’s rejections of various claims
under Section 112:
(a) the issue with “jumper 405-4” is a “typographical error that can be
easily remedied by amending paragraph 0050 of the specification” and “such
4
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
a minor error that may be easily corrected when the Application re-enters
prosecution, does not rise to the level of indefmiteness” (App. Br. 17);
(b) “by reading the application and following the figures
chronologically, all items the Examiner alleges to be ‘unillustrated’ are
actually illustrated, labeled, or described in depictions and description of the
build-up of the capacitive sensor pattern 600 of Figure 6” {id. at 18);
(c) “it is well-known to one skilled in the art that the ‘conductive’
materials, such as Indium Tin Oxide, that are often used in the build-up of
capacitive sensor patterns have a not inconsequential amount of resistance
when compared to a conductive material such as silver” and “the terms
‘ohmically coupled’ and ‘ohmically extended’ are appropriately used in the
claims to a capacitive sensor pattern, even if not well-liked or received by
the Examiner’” {id. at 19-20);
(d) “[cjapacitive pixels should be well-understood by one of skill in
the art” and “are discussed and illustrated in the figures” {id. at 20-22); and
(e) “in light of the discussion of extensions 607, the referenced
language of Claim 17 [“first and third plurality of elements are configured to
generate overlapping pixel response functions between adjacent pixels of
said capacitive sensor pattern”] should be clear and definite to one of skill in
the art” {id. at 24).
5
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness of Claims 1—8 and 10—20
We agree with Appellant’s contentions 4(a) and 4(b) because we
conclude that, although a cross-sectional view might have supplied
additional clarity, the figures provided, coupled with the detailed
description, adequately describe the layered structure and connection points
of the claimed subject matter. The minor typographical error in the
Specification does not render the claims indefinite.
Regarding contention 4(c), we agree with Appellant that one of
ordinary skill in the field of this invention would have understood the
meanings of “ohmically coupled” and “ohmically extended.” (See, e.g.,
Schwartz 126 (“In some capacitive implementations, separate sensing
elements may be ohmically shorted together to form larger sensor
electrodes.”).)
We also agree with Appellant’s contention 4(d), as the Specification,
in our view, provides an adequate description of the claimed capacitive
pixels. (See, e.g., Spec. 138 (“The center of location PI represents an
example center of a capacitive pixel associated with a particular combination
of a transmitter electrode element and a receiver electrode element.”).)
Finally, we agree with Appellant’s contention 4(e), that “first and
third plurality of elements are configured to generate overlapping pixel
response functions between adjacent pixels of said capacitive sensor pattern”
is not indefinite. This feature is described in detail in paragraph 59 the
Specification, which explains that the “[extensions 607 allow the footprints
of adjacent receiver electrode elements 301 (from separate receiver electrode
columns) to overlap one another” which “causes a partial overlap of the
6
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
capacitive pixels associated with the individual receiver electrode elements
301 and thus an overlap of their respective pixel response functions.”
For these reasons, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Obviousness of Claims 1—16
Appellant’s argument that XiaoPing fails to teach or suggest a
“second plurality of sensor electrode elements physically coupled with at
least two of a first plurality of sensor electrode elements” is based on the fact
that “an element of top conductive layer 576 is physically coupled to a via
577 which is then coupled to a bottom conductive layer 576.” (App. Br. 11,
emphasis added.) In essence, Appellant argues that “physically coupled”
means “directly physically coupled” or “physically coupled with no
intervening structure.'1'’ During prosecution, however, claim language is
afforded its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification3 and we have been pointed to nothing that would impose the
additional limiting language that Appellants’ argument implies. The plain
meaning of “physically coupled” encompasses both direct and indirect
physical coupling. Cf. MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm ’n, 447 F.
App’x 142, 152 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Nowhere in the specification is the
claimed electrical coupling described as ‘direct,’ and nothing in the claim
language or specification suggests that ‘electrically coupled’ should have
any interpretation other than its plain meaning.”).
3 See In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
7
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s Section 103(a) rejection of
claim 1, as well as the Section 103(a) rejections of claims 2—8 and 10-16, for
which Appellant does not offer separate arguments.4
Obviousness of Claims 17—19
Regarding the claim 17 language “wherein a receiver electrode
element of said plurality of receiver electrode elements comprises a central
component traversed substantially orthogonally by at least two additional
components,” the Examiner “points to . . . Figure 7A of XiaoPing wherein a
receiver electrode element (701) is illustrated having a central component
(703(1)) and substantially orthogonally traversed by component (705).”
(Ans. 5, also citing XiaoPing 1117.) Appellant responds that “the cited to
elements 701, 703(1), and 705 are clearly part of top conductive layer 575 of
Figures 5C and 5D, and the Examiner has cited these top conductive element
575 in the rejection as teaching the second plurality of electrode elements in
Claim 17.” (Reply Br. 4.)
Appellant is correct that the structure 700 corresponds to the diamond
shaped sensors of the top conductive layer 575, which the Examiner has
mapped to the claimed second plurality, where the claim requires that the
first plurality have “a central component traversed substantially orthogonally
4 We note that the Examiner identifies elements of XiaoPing’s bottom
conductive layer 576 (shown in black in Fig. 5C) as the first plurality of
sensor electrode elements and elements of XiaoPing’s top conductive layer
575 (shown in grey in Fig. 5C) as the “second plurality of sensor electrode
elements” at least of one which is “physically coupled with at least two of
said first plurality of sensor electrode elements.” (Final Act. 11.) Figure 5C,
however, shows that each top conductive element 575 is connected to just
one bottom conductive element 576. As Appellant did not argue this issue,
however, we deem it waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal 2015-000207
Application 13/165,498
by at least two additional components.” For that reason, and because the
Examiner has not made a finding that it would have been obvious to modify
the elements of bottom conductive layer 576 to have the shape of XiaoPing’s
sensor array 700,5 we reverse the Section 103(a) rejection of claims 17—19.
We do not reach Appellant’s argument regarding the “overlapping pixel
response” of claim 17.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, are reversed.
The rejections of claims 1—8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
affirmed. The rejections of claims 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
reversed.
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-IN-PART
5 We do not consider, because the issue is not before us, whether this claim
would have been obvious were XiaoPing’s top conductive layer considered
to be the claimed first plurality and Xiao Ping’s bottom conductive layer
considered to be the claimed second plurality. See supra note 4.
9