Ex Parte Konstas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2014

11709897 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON KONSTAS
____________

Appeal 2012-002921
Application 11/709,897
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002921
Application 11/709,897

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed January 31, 2011, the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed June 9, 2011, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 9,
2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to detecting a conductive object
proximate to a sensing device with at least one sensor element and
preventing unintentional activation of the at least one capacitance sensor by
using an additional sensor element. See Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting a presence of a conductive object on a sensing
device having one or more sensor elements; and
preventing unintentional activation of the one or more
sensor elements caused by the conductive object using an
additional sensor element.

Appeal 2012-002921
Application 11/709,897

3
The Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6–9, 16–18, 20, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Geaghan (US 2003/0063073 A1,
Apr. 3, 2003). Ans. 5–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 2–5, 10–15, 19, 21, 22, and 24–28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geaghan and Trent
(US 2004/0252109 A1, Dec. 16, 2004). Ans. 11–22.

ANALYSIS2
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 16-18, 20, and 23
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 12–
16), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–28 turns on whether Geaghan discloses an “additional
sensor element,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 8 and 23 (see App. Br. 12).3
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellant on pages 22 through 25 of the Answer.
We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions. Therefore, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is

1 The rejection of claims 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph has
been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2–7, 9–22, 24, 25,
27, and 28. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
3 Appellant contends that claim 26 should be patentable for similar reasons
as claims 1, 8, and 23. App. Br. 15.
Appeal 2012-002921
Application 11/709,897

4
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 22–25.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 23 because Geaghan does not disclose an “additional sensor
element.” App. Br. 12–15; Reply Br. 2–4. In particular, Appellant contends
Geaghan’s touch sensor 11 “is only a single sensor” and thus does
correspond to the claimed additional sensor element. App. Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner equates Geaghan’s force sensitive
capacitive sensors to the disputed additional sensor element. Ans. 23-25
(citing Geaghan ¶¶ 45 and 82).
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
Geaghan discloses multiple sensing elements placed at the
corners of a rigid overlay indicative of a force based touch
capacitance sensing system. Geaghan states “Force touch
screens utilize sensors located at predetermined positions, each
measuring a component of force due to a touch at a location on
the touch screen. By measuring the different forces at strategic
locations (e.g., at the four corners), the location of touch can be
determined.” (¶0082) Geaghan employs a measurement of
touch based forces though force sensitive capacitance sensors
placed at the corners to report a valid touch position location
(¶0045).
Ans. 23.
We agree with the decisions reached by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6–9, 16–18, 20,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Section 103 rejection of claims 2-5, 10-15, 19, 21, 22 and 24-28
Appellant argues Geaghan and Trent do not cure the noted
deficiencies of Geaghan. App. Br. 15–16. As discussed above, we find no
Appeal 2012-002921
Application 11/709,897

5
such deficiencies in Geaghan to remedy. We sustain the rejections of claims
2–5, 10–15, 19, 21, 22, and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6–9, 16–18, 20, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Geaghan.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2–5, 10–15, 19, 21, 22,
and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Geaghan
and Trent.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–28.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc