Ex Parte Huppi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2019

13624858 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/624,858 09/21/2012
62579 7590 02/21/2019
APPLE INC./BROWNSTEIN
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Q. Huppi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Pl6142US1 1057
EXAMINER
CASTIAUX, BRENT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
patentdocket@bhfs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN Q. HUPPI, OMER SZE LEUNG, CRAIG
CHRISTOPHER LEONG, and PAUL STEPHEN DRZAIC
Appeal 2018-005341 1
Application 13/624,8582
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRWIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the rejection of claims
36-70, all of the claims pending in this case. Final Act. 2. Claims 1-35 are
canceled. Br. i (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
December 18, 2017) and Reply ("Reply," filed April 23, 2018); the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 13, 2017); the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed February 23, 2018); and the originally-filed Specification
("Spec.," filed September 21, 2012).
2 According to Appellants, the real party-in-interest is Apple Inc. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter relates to electronic devices for
"force sensing in a touch device, and related matters." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 36, 48, and 59 are independent, and each is directed to
electronic devices. Br. i, iii, v (Claims App'x). Claims 37--47 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 36, claims 49--58 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 48, and claims 60-70 depend directly or indirectly
from claim 59. Id. at i-v.
Claim 36, reproduced below, is illustrative.
3 6. An electronic device, comprising:
a deformable device stack positioned below a cover layer,
the deformable device stack comprising:
a dual indium tin oxide layer; and
a display layer positioned below the dual indium tin
oxide layer;
a compressible construct element positioned below the
deformable device stack, the compressible construct element
compnsmg:
a flex-drive layer for transmitting drive signals;
a flex-sense layer for transmitting sense signals;
a compressible layer positioned between the flex-
drive layer and the flex-sense layer; and
one or more compressible elements coupled to the
flex-drive layer and the flex-sense layer; and
a frame element positioned below the compressible
construct element,
wherein compression of the compressible construct
element is responsive to applied force to the cover layer by a user
finger and resistance by the frame element;
2
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
the compressible construct element underlies substantially
all of an area of the display layer; and
the flex-drive layer and the flex-sense layer form
capacitive force sensors disposed across substantially all of the
area of the display layer to sense the applied force.
Id. at i ( disputed limitations emphasized).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
pending claims:
Name Pat./Publ. No. Issue/Publ. Date Filing Date
Bernstein et al. US 2011/0141052 Al June 16, 2011 Dec. 10, 2009
("Bernstein")
Peterson et al. US 2010/0171715 Al June 8, 2010 Oct. 15, 2009
("Peterson")
Chang et al. US 2012/0327027 Al Dec. 27, 2012 Sep. 7,2012
("Chang")
Woo US 2012/0319987 A2 Dec. 20, 2012 Jun. 15, 2011
Ra et al. ("Ra") US 2013/0328575 Al Dec. 12, 2013 Aug. 15, 2012
Krumpelman et al. US 2011/0096013 Al Apr. 28, 2011 Dec. 22, 2010
("Krumpelman")
Claims 36, 37, 39-42, 46, and 47 stand rejected as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Bernstein, Peterson, and
Chang. Br. 3. Claim 38 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over the combined teachings of Bernstein, Peterson, Chang, and Woo.
Id. at 10-11. Claims 43 and 44 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Bernstein, Peterson, Chang,
and Ra. Id. at 11-13. Claim 45 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Bernstein, Peterson, Chang,
and Krumpelman. Id. at 13-15. Claims 48-70 stand rejected as
3
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of
Bernstein, Peterson, and Ra. Id. at 15-31.
Appellants argue the non-obviousness of independent claim 36, but do
not argue separately the non-obviousness of independent claims 48 and 59 or
of the dependent claims. Br. 12-13; Ans. 34; but see Final Act. 3-31
(finding all pending claims unpatentable ). Consequently, except for our
ultimate decision, we do not discuss the rejections of claims 37-70 further
herein.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's
findings in the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
appearing below for emphasis. We address the rejection to claim 36 below.
ANALYSIS
Issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in interpreting "to sense the applied force" to
encompass "detecting that a force has been applied to the sensor"?
Reply 2; see Ans. 32.
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Bernstein in combination
with Petersen teaches or suggests the recited compressible
construct element that "sense[ s] the applied force" and is
"responsive to applied force," as recited in independent claims 36?
Br. 10-11; see Ans. 32-33.
4
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
(3) Did the Examiner err in determining that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings
Bernstein, Peterson, and Chang to achieve the electronic device
recited in claim 36? Br. 11-12; see Ans. 33-34.
1. Claim Interpretation
The Examiner determines that
the claimed "to sense the applied force" is not interpreted as in
the appellant[s'] arguments. In a broad but reasonable
interpretation, the examiner interprets this limitation as simply
detecting that a force has been applied to the sensor. The claim
language is open to interpret the claim in this manner as there is
no measurement of the amount of force applied. A "sensing" of
an applied force does not require the measurement of force
applied, but merely a detection of a touch.
Ans. 32. Appellants disagree.
Appellants contend, "the Examiner's interpretation of 'to sense the
applied force' is not valid because claim 3 6 recites more than a device that
senses an applied force." Reply 2. In particular, Appellants contend that the
"application provides techniques, including circuits and designs, which can
determine amounts of force applied, and changes in amounts of force
applied, by the user when contacting a touch device (such as a touch pad or
touch display)," and devices, as recited in claim 36 and depicted in Figure 7,
embody such circuits and designs. Br. 6 ( quoting Spec. ,r 5 ( emphasis
added)). The Specification explains, however, "[t]hese techniques can be
incorporated into devices using touch recognition, touch elements of a GUI,
and touch input or manipulation in an application program." Spec. ,r 5
( emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
Claim interpretation begins with the language of the claims. The
language of claim 3 6 does not recite expressly the ability to sense the
amount, as well as the presence, of the applied force. Br. i (Claims App'x).
Although the Specification describes embodiments in which the amount and
presence of an applied force can be sensed (see, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 3, 5, 28),
claim 36 recites "sens[ing] the applied force" broadly and that "compression
of the compressible construct element is responsive to applied force to the
cover layer by a user finger and resistance by the frame element." Br. i
(Claims App'x) (emphases added). As the Specification explains, "having
the ability to provide those functions might provide the touch device with
greater capabilities, to the possible advantage of the effectiveness and value
of the touch device." Spec. ,r 4 (emphases added); see id. ,r 28 ("Described
embodiments may include touch I/0 device 1001 that can receive touch
input and force input (such as possibly including touch locations and applied
force at those locations) for interacting with computing system 1003 (such as
shown in the figure 1) via wired or wireless communication channel 1002."
(emphasis added)). Therefore, we are persuaded neither that measurement
of the amount of force is necessarily read into the claim limitations (Ans.
32), nor that the Examiner erred in the interpretation of claim 36.
2. Teaching the "Compressible Construct Element"
The Examiner finds that:
Firstly, ... Peterson teaches the detection of a user's touch input.
The touch on the device stack, shown in figure 7 of Peterson,
causes a compression of the spring mechanisms 220/222 and the
air gap 218. Secondly, Peterson teaches the flex layers, as shown
in the rejection as the conductive layers, separated by the air gap
and spring mechanisms. Bernstein teaches the force sensing
layer that when a force is applied, the electrodes move closer
6
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
towards each other to detect the location of a user's finger. As
shown in the rejection, the combination of Bernstein and
Peterson teaches the conductive layers of Peterson forming the
capacitive force sensor as claimed.
Ans. 33 (emphasis added). In particular, referring to Bernstein's Figure 8,
force sensors 34 may have upper capacitor electrode 7 6 and lower capacitor
electrode 78. Bernstein ,r 85.
Capacitor sensor circuitry 80 may be used to determine the
distance between electrodes 76 and 78 by measuring the
capacitance across electrodes 76 and 78. When a force is applied
that moves electrode 7 6 downwards in direction 82, the
capacitance ( and therefore capacitance output signal OUT) will
rise, indicating the presence of the force.
Id.; see Final Act. 4.
Peterson's Figure 8 is reproduced below.
~,~t~i •.·.· ....
'
A,a l-f ~;;;;;;~;;\~;~)~;~;~~;~;;~;~ ~:
........................................................................................................................................ â„¢ ...................................................................................... ~ ............................................... .:........... ................ .....
Fig. 8
Figure 8 depicts a side sectional view of an example material assembly in
accordance with one or more embodiments of Peterson's device. Peterson
,r 21. In particular, Figure 8 depicts a finger applying force to touch screen
202, resulting in the compression of spring mechanisms 220, 222 and the
decrease in the width of air gap 218 between conductive layers of material
7
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
212,214, i.e., causing material layer 212 to move toward material layer 214.
Id. ,r,r 80-85. As Peterson explains, its device may sense a user's touch by
"suitable, known technologies include, by way of example and not
limitation, capacitive field technology, resistive technology, optical, field
effect, force/pressure, inductive, Hall effect, and the like." Id. ,r 46; see id.
,r,r 50, 80. Like Bernstein's device, Peterson teaches that its device 200 may
sense touch by means of capacitive field technology. See id. ,r 46; see
Bernstein, Fig. 8.
Appellants disagree and contend, "[Peterson's] actuator mechanism is
configured to provide tactile feedback to a user responsive to a user touching
or otherwise engaging the screen 202." Peterson ,r 36; see Br. 11. Thus,
Appellants contend, "Peterson describes a screen 202 that can sense a user's
touch, and a separate actuator mechanism 206 that can provide tactile
feedback to a user in response to the user's touch on the screen 202." Br. 11;
see Reply 2 ("The two conductive layers separated by the air gap are used
solely as an actuator 206 for providing tactile feedback to a user. There is no
teaching or suggestion by Peterson that the two conductive layers separated
by the air gap are used in any way for force OR touch detection." ( emphasis
added)). Although Appellants are correct that Peterson does teach that its
actuator mechanism provides tactile feedback, that is not the limit of
Peterson's teaching, and Appellants do not overcome the Examiner's
rejection based on the combined teachings of Bernstein and Peterson by
focusing on Peterson individually. See MPEP § 2145(IV).
The Examiner relies on Bernstein's force sensors 34 to teach or
suggest the recited "compressible construct element" of claim 3 6. Final
Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Peterson to teach a known structure for such
8
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
sensors. Final Act. 5---6; see Peterson ,r,r 46, 47, 50, 80; see also Peterson
,r 94 ("At least one of the substrates supports, either directly or indirectly, or
is otherwise in operative contact with a user input mechanism by which a
user can provide input to the device."). We agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Bernstein and Peterson teach or suggest "compression of the
compressible construct element is responsive to applied force to the cover
layer by a user finger and resistance by the frame element" and "the flex-
drive layer and the flex-sense layer form capacitive force sensors disposed
across substantially all of the area of the display layer to sense the applied
force. Br. i (Claim App'x) (emphases added).
3. Reason to Combine
The Examiner determines that "it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Bernstein's force [sensors] to include
Peterson's conductive layers and gap because such a modification is the
result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a
predictable result." Final Act. 5. Appellants disagree.
Appellants contend that:
Nowhere does Peterson teach or suggest that any of the elements
of actuator mechanism 206 (including the conductive layers of
material 212, 214, air gap 218, or spring mechanism 220, 222)
are ( or could or should be) configured to detect an applied force
(e.g., nowhere does Peterson describe the detection of a force
applied by a user's finger 700 (Fig. 7)).
Br. 11; Reply 2 ("There is no teaching or suggestion by Peterson that the two
conductive layers separated by the air gap are used in any way for force OR
touch detection."). Nevertheless, both Bernstein and Peterson teach that
conductive layers may be moved together to detect an applied force.
9
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
Bernstein ,r 85, Fig. 8; Peterson ,r,r 46, 47, 50, 80. The Examiner finds that
"[r]eplacing one sensor technology with another does not go beyond
ordinary skill as they both perform the same basic function. It does not
eliminate the functionality of Bernstein as it merely swaps the sensing
technology and adds a tactile response functionality." Ans. 33-34. We
agree.
Further, "Chang teaches a capacitive touch screen with a display
layer positioned below the dual Indium tin oxide layer." Final Act 6-7
( discussing Chang ,r 34, Fig. 1 C). Thus, the Examiner concludes that:
At the time the invention was made, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bernstein's
touch sensor to include Chang's above display touch sensing
because such a modification is the result of applying a known
technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield
predictable results. More specifically, Chang's above display
touch sensing permits accurate mutual-capacitive touch
detection. This known benefit in Chang is applicable to
Bernstein's touch sensor as they both share characteristics and
capabilities, namely, they are directed to touch sensing devices.
Id. at 7. Again, we agree.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Bernstein, Peterson, and Chang teach or suggest the
limitations of the electronic device recited in claim 3 6 and that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine their teachings to
achieve the electronic device, as recited in claim 3 6. Because Appellants do
not argue claims 37-70 separately, we also are not persuaded that Examiner
erred in rejecting those claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of
claims 36-70.
10
Appeal 2018-005341
Application 13/624,858
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 36-70 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
11