Ex Parte KRAH et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201612558380 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/558,380 09/11/2009 69753 7590 02/26/2016 APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Christoph Horst KRAH 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. 106842029300(P7625US1) 6335 EXAMINER CHOW, VAN NGUYEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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): EOfficeLA@mofo.com PatentDocket@mofo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPH HORST KRAH, STEVEN PORTER HOTELLING, and MARDUKE YOUSEFPOR1 Appeal2014-003346 Application 12/558,380 Technology Center 2600 Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 12-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in the application. Claims 1-11 and 19-25 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-003346 Application 12/558,380 INVENTION According to Appellants, the claims are directed to methods for measuring an effect of body capacitance in a touch sensitive device. Abstract; see also claims 12-18. Claim 12, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 12. A method comprising: enabling a mode for measuring a body capacitance effect in a touch sensor panel couplable to a sense channel and a drive channel; switching the sense channel from a reference signal input to a stimulation signal input; capturing outputs of the sense channel comprising signals from the touch sensor panel indicative of the body capacitance of an object proximate to the panel; and determining the body capacitance effect based on the captured outputs. REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wilson (US 2008/0162751 Al; published July 3, 2008). ANALYSIS Claims 12-18 On the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings that Wilson describes the disputed claim limitations. Appellants contend that the Examiner errs because Wilson does not describe measuring and determining a body capacitance effect, as claim 12 requires. App. Br. 5-6. Appellants argue that there is no discussion in 2 Appeal2014-003346 Application 12/558,380 Wilson of "enabling a mode for measuring a body capacitance effect" because Wilson detects a touch event, which is not the same as enabling a mode for measuring or determining a body capacitance effect. Id. at 6. Appellants further argue that, in Wilson, "the combined body and finger capacitance can be determined without determining Cbody individually," and, therefore, "Wilson does not inherently disclose 'determining the body capacitance effect."' Reply 3--4. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of error. Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the description in paragraphs 26 and 30 of Wilson, relied on by the Examiner, from the limitations "measuring a body capacitance effect in a touch sensor panel" and "determining the body capacitance effect," as recited in claim 12. For example, Wilson describes that: Finger 212 is a grounded object, and has an AC capacitance to ground of Cfinger. The body has a self-capacitance to ground Cbody of about 200 pF, vvhere Cfinger is much larger than Cbody. If finger 212 blocks some of electric field lines 208 appearing between the row and column electrodes (those fringing fields that exit the dielectric and pass through the air above the row electrode), those electric field lines are shunted to ground through the capacitance inherent in the finger, and as a result, the steady state signal capacitance Csig is reduced by ~Csig. In other words, the combined body and finger capacitance ~Csig (which also can be referred to herein as Csig_ sense) can act as a shunt or dynamic return path to ground, blocking some of the electric fields and resulting in a reduced net signal capacitance. The signal capacitance at the pixel becomes Csig-~Csig .... Wilson ,-i 30. Appellants' arguments are directed to "body capacitance" (or Cbody), not "body capacitance effect," even though the plain language of 3 Appeal2014-003346 Application 12/558,380 claim 12 and Appellant's Specification make clear that "body capacitance" is different than "body capacitance effect." See, e.g., Claim 12, Spec. iJ 64. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 12 does not recite determining Cbody individually, and we decline to import that limitation into the claim. For these reasons, we do not find that the Examiner errs in finding that Wilson describes "measuring a body capacitance effect in a touch sensor panel" and "determining the body capacitance effect," as recited in claim 12. Appellants further contend that the Examiner errs because Wilson does not describe "switching the sense channel from a reference signal input to a stimulation signal input," as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 5-6. Appellants argue that Figure 32 of Wilson shows that the sense channel input is tied to a reference voltage, and"[ a]n input tied to a reference voltage cannot switch between different inputs," as claim 12 requires. Id. at 6-7. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of error. We agree with the Examiner that Figure 3a of Wilson shows "switching the sense channel" from DC input to a VStim input, which paragraph 32 also describes. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4. We also agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 12 does not recite a physical switch, and we decline to import that limitation into the claims. Ans. 4. Moreover, Appellants present no persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner's additional explanation in the Answer regarding how the cited portions of Wilson anticipate claim 12. See Ans. 4; Reply 3. 2 Both the Examiner and Appellants refer to Figure 3 of Wilson. See, e.g., Final Act. 4; App. Br. 5. We note that Wilson contains Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c. We interpret the Examiner's rejection and Appellants' argument to refer to Figure 3a of Wilson. 4 Appeal2014-003346 Application 12/558,380 For these reasons, we do not find that the Examiner errs in finding that Wilson describes "switching the sense channel from a reference signal input to a stimulation signal input," as recited in claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 12, as well as the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 13-18, for which Appellants make no arguments other than those for the independent claim on which those claims depend. App. Br. 7. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-18 is sustained. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation