Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13913692 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/913,692 06/10/2013 Wei Huang AMDI:287\HON 4394
16501 7590
Timothy M. Honeycutt
Attorney at Law
37713 Parkway Oaks Ln.
Magnolia, TX 77355
09/28/2017 EXAMINER
WYNNE, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
timhoney @ sprynet.com
timhoneycutt @ earthlink.net
elizabethahoneycutt @ earthlink.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI HUANG and WILLIAM L. BIRCHER
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20 and 22—25. Claim 21 has been canceled. Appeal Br. 6. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a case;
a first sensor in the case, the first sensor being operable to
generate an output in response to sensing contact
with a body part of a user and to transmit the output
to a computing device; and
wherein the computing device manages thermal behavior
of the computing device responsive to the output.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—20 and 22—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2014/0358318 Al; published Dec. 4,
2014) (“Lin”).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Lin discloses a portable electronic device
including a plurality of capacitive temperature sensors, a plurality of touch­
sensing cells, a controller, and a thermal manager. Final Act. 4 (citing Lin
Fig. 5,112). The Examiner finds Lin’s controller receives sensing results
from the capacitive temperature sensors and touch-sensing cells and,
responsive to which, determines the device’s estimated temperature and
sends the estimated temperature to a thermal manager to perform thermal
throttling in the device. Final Act. 4—6 (citing Lin Fig. 5,112). Based on at
least these findings, the Examiner finds Lin discloses “a first sensor . . .
2
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
operable to generate an output in response to sensing contact with a body
part of a user and to transmit the output to a computing device . . . [that]
manages thermal behavior . . . responsive to the output,” as recited in claim
1. Final Act. 4—6.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Lin discloses these
limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 19—24; Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants argue
Lin does not disclose using the sensing of body contact in order to perform
thermal management of its device because Lin’s device is “temperature for
temperature, touch for touch.” Appeal. Br. 20—22; Reply Br. 2^4. More
specifically, Appellants assert the touch-sensing cells of Lin’s device are not
used for any thermal management purposes but merely function as a typical
capacitive touch sensor for a touch screen to enable the user to input
commands and manipulate screen icons. Appeal Br. 20. Different from
Lin’s touch-sensing cells, Appellants assert Lin’s capacitive temperature
sensors are used for thermal management purposes because readings from
these sensors are used to estimate the device’s temperature and decide
whether to perform thermal throttling in the device. Appeal Br. 20—21. In
other words, Appellants assert that, contrary to the disputed claim
limitations, Lin manages thermal behavior in response to outputs from the
capacitive temperature sensors, not the capacitive touch sensors. Appeal.
Br. 19.
We conclude Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1 and are therefore unpersuasive of error. As an initial
matter, nothing in claim 1 precludes the recited apparatus from having a
second sensor, such as Lin’s capacitive temperature sensor, in addition to the
claimed first sensor (corresponding to Lin’s touch sensing cell). This is
3
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
consistent with the Specification, which describes a device that can have
pressure sensors and/or temperature sensors that may be used to manage the
device’s thermal behavior. Spec. ^fl[ 29 (“Thus, for example, any of the
sensors . . . can be a temperature sensor or a pressure sensor. . . . [and] can
pick up indications of increased temperature or touch by a user and those
readings can be used to modify the thermal behavior of the computing
device.”), 32 (disclosing that the temperature and pressure sensors may be
positioned at various positions on the device), 35 (“The case . . . may also
house . . . one or more Pressure Sensors . . . and one or more Temperature
Sensors”). Moreover, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, nothing in claim 1
requires directly using the value of a touch sensor’s “output” to manage
thermal behavior. Rather, claim 1 merely recites managing thermal behavior
“responsive to” the output in response to sensing contact with a body part of
a user.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that a broad but reasonable
interpretation of claim 1 includes Lin’s disclosures of sending sensing
results from touch-sensing cells and capacitive temperature sensors to a
controller and, responsive to receiving these sensing results, using the
controller and a thermal manager to manage thermal behavior (e.g., perform
thermal throttling on Lin’s device). Lin, Pig. 5, ^fl[ 12, 55—57. Lor example,
figure 5 of Lin shows a block diagram of Lin’s device in which sensing
results from touch-sensing cells and capacitive temperature sensors are sent
to a controller that then sends data to a thermal manager. Lin, Pig. 5. As the
Examiner explains, “Appellants’] argument that Lin does not teach
[managing thermal behavior in] ‘response to outputs from the capacitive
touch sensor’ ... is in clear contradiction to [figure] 5 of Lin.” Ans. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
Here, we remind Appellants that “[t]he use of patents as references is not
limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the
problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of
the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332—33
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA
1968)); cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted) (“A reference may be read for all that it teaches . . . .”). Consistent
with the Examiner’s findings, Lin discloses that:
the portable electronic device . . . includes a plurality of
capacitive temperature sensors . . . , a plurality of touch sensing
cells . . ., a controller . . . and a thermal manager .... The
controller ... is for receiving sensing results from the
capacitive temperature sensors . . . and for receiving sensing
results from the touch sensing cells .... The temperature
determined by the controller ... is sent to the thermal manager
. . . , [which] makes a decision on whether to perform thermal
throttling in the portable electronic device.
Lin || 55—57; see also Lin 112 (describing a thermal control module
including a controller, coupled to a capacitive temperature sensor and touch­
sensing cells, wherein the controller determines data based on sensing
results; and a thermal manager, coupled to the controller, for managing
thermal throttling in the device based on the determined data sent from the
controller). Further, Appellants present no persuasive evidence that a person
of ordinary skill would have understood claim 1 to exclude Lin’s portable
electronic device, even if, as Appellants argue, in Lin, “temperature is for
temperature, touch for touch.”
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in
light of each of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of record, we
disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner’s findings,
5
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
conclusions, and reasons, which we adopt as our own to the extent consistent
with this Decision. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8, 11, 15,
and 22 and dependent claims 2—6, 9, 12, 13, 16—19, and 23—25, which
Appellants do not argue separately beyond the arguments advanced for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 24—26.
Claims 7, 10, 14, and 20
With respect to claim 7, Appellants additionally argue that “Lin . . .,
while providing for location specific temperature sensing by way of the
capacitive temperature sensors, does not provide for location specific
thermal management of electronic components, i.e., throttling.”
Appeal Br. 24. We disagree with Appellants. As the Examiner finds, Lin
discloses thermal management, e.g., throttling, of electronic components at a
specific location because Lin discloses that “[wjhen thermal throttling is
performed,. . [,] the display brightness of a display panel is changed.”
Final Act. 9 (citing Lin | 58); Ans. 5. More specifically, we agree with the
Examiner that Lin’s display panel discloses, as recited in claim 7, “at least
one of the electronic components positioned proximate contact with the
body part of the user” as Lin’s display panel is part of a sensing area of a
touch panel that is configured to detect a user’s touch. See Final Act. 9
(citing, e.g., Lin 130 (disclosing touch-sensing cells at the hotspot of
sensing area 105A); see also Lin, Fig. 1A, item 105A, 120, 28 (“The
main sensing area 120 also functions as a display area.”), 32 (disclosing
touch-sensing cells located on main sensing area 120).
6
Appeal 2017-005639
Application 13/913,692
For claims 10, 14, and 20, Appellants additionally argue “Lin . . . does
not provide for thermal management of components that are tied to the
location of body contact.” Appeal Br. 25, 26. We disagree with Appellants
and, instead, agree with the Examiner that Lin discloses this feature in view
of our discussion above for claim 7. See also Final Act. 12, 15—16, 20—21
(citing, e.g., Lin 1130, 58).
Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7,
10, 14, and 20 in light of each of Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of
record, we disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner’s findings,
conclusions, and reasons, which we adopt as our own to the extent consistent
with this Decision. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 10, 14,
and 21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1—20 and 22—25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7