Ex Parte MIYAHARA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14067545 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/067,545 10/30/2013
78198 7590
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
09/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kageyasu MIYAHARA
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.
005700-ME0058 1717
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAGEY ASU MIYAHARA and SEIICHIRO MORI
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a touch panel device that determines whether
an abnormal state exists based on extracted difference information and
stored baseline information. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A touch panel device, comprising: a touch panel having a
plurality of sensors that measure a capacitance; a first difference information
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation of Tokyo, Japan. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
extracting part that extracts, as first difference information, a difference in
capacitance between adjacent ones of said plurality of sensors;
a first baseline storage that stores, as a first base line, said first
difference information extracted by said first difference information
extracting part when a detection target is not in proximity to or does not
contact said touch panel;
a detecting part that detects proximity to or contact with said touch
panel by said detection target based on said first difference information
extracted by said first difference information extracting part and said first
baseline stored in said first baseline storage;
a second difference information extracting part that extracts, as second
difference information, a difference in capacitance between a reference
sensor being a predetermined sensor among said plurality of sensors and a
sensor among said plurality of sensors and different from said reference
sensor;
a second baseline storage that stores, as a second baseline, said second
difference information extracted by said second difference information
extracting part when said detection target is not in proximity to or does not
contact said touch panel;
an abnormal state determining part that determines the presence of an
abnormal state based on said second difference information extracted by said
second difference information extracting part and said second baseline
stored in said second baseline storage; and
a controller that, in response to said abnormal state determining part
determining that there is an abnormal state, controls to update said first and
second baselines stored in said first and second baseline storages
respectively.
2
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
THE REJECTIONS 2
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Roberts (US 2003/0210235 Al; published Nov. 13, 2003) and Umeda
(US 2005/0122785 Al; published June 9, 2005). Ans. 3-6. 3
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Roberts, Umeda, and Konstas (US 2008/0196945 Al;
published Aug. 21, 2008). Ans. 6-11.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ROBERTS AND UMEDA
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Roberts
discloses, among other things, a touch panel device with ( 1) a "first
information extracting part" that extracts, as "first difference information," a
difference in capacitance, and (2) a "second information extracting part" that
extracts, as "second difference information," a difference in capacitance
between a predetermined reference sensor and another different sensor.
Ans. 3--4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Roberts does not
extract both recited forms of "difference information," namely capacitance
differences between (1) adjacent capacitance-measuring sensors, and (2) a
predetermined reference sensor and another sensor, the Examiner cites
U meda as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 5---6.
2 Because the Examiner withdrew an indefiniteness rejection (Ans. 2), that
rejection is not before us.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 20,
2017 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 19, 2017
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
Appellants argue that not only does Roberts fail to teach or suggest
the recited first and second difference information, the Examiner's
"piecemeal" treatment of the claims fails to consider the claimed invention
as a whole. App. Br. 4---6. Appellants add that modifying Roberts with
Umeda as proposed changes Roberts' error-detection-based principle of
operation in favor ofUmeda's "normal-state" operation of sensing touch
signals. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Roberts and
Umeda collectively would have taught or suggested the first and second
difference information recited in claim 1?
(2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether
the proposed combination impermissibly changes Roberts' principle of
operation or renders it unsuitable for its intended purpose.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites two forms of extracted "difference information" that
are at issue in this appeal: (1) "first difference information" that is a
difference in capacitance between adjacent sensors, and (2) "second
difference information" that is a difference in capacitance between a
predetermined reference sensor and a different sensor.
The Examiner finds that Roberts' touch panel functionality in
paragraphs 40 and 50 teaches extracting "difference information" that
4
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
reflects capacitance differences. See Ans. 3--4, 12-13. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that this capacitive "difference information" is not
the two particular types of difference information recited in claim 1, the
Examiner nonetheless cites Umeda to cure that deficiency in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. See Ans. 5---6, 13-15.
We see no error in these findings. First, Appellants do not squarely
address-let alone persuasively rebut-the Examiner's reliance on Roberts'
paragraph 40 for teaching extracting capacitance difference information in
addition to Roberts' paragraph 50. See Ans. 12 (quoting Roberts ,r 40).
Second, to the extent that Appellants' arguments regarding Roberts'
paragraph 50 (see App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 1-3) somehow also apply to
paragraph 40, we find such arguments unavailing. That Roberts may not
state explicitly that "difference information" is extracted via the functionality
in these paragraphs does not mean that such an extraction would not have
been obvious. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (noting that
in considering a reference's disclosure, it is proper to consider not only its
specific teachings, but also inferences that ordinarily skilled artisans would
reasonably be expected to draw from the reference). Notably, the relied-
upon functionality associated with capacitive force sensors 401--404 in
Roberts' Figure 4, as well as determining differential touch-signal changes
in paragraph 40, at least suggests extracting some form of information
associated with capacitance differences. See Ans. 4--5, 12-13 (citing
Roberts ,r,r 40, 50).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on Umeda
merely to show that determining differences in capacitance between ( 1)
adjacent capacitance-measuring sensors, and (2) a predetermined reference
5
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
sensor and another sensor is known in the art, and that extracting such
difference information in Roberts would have been obvious. See Ans. 5---6,
13 (citing Umeda ,r,r 74--102; Figs. 5A-5B). Appellants do not squarely
address-let alone persuasively rebut-the Examiner's particular findings
from Umeda in this regard, apart from merely asserting that Umeda is
directed to a "normal-state" operation of sensing touch signals that
ostensibly differs from Roberts' error state detection. See App. Br. 4--7;
Reply Br. 1--4. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary, we see no
error in the Examiner's reliance on Umeda to cure Roberts' deficiencies, for
this proposed enhancement uses prior art elements predictably according to
their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We find unavailing Appellants' contention that modifying Roberts
with Umeda as proposed ostensibly changes Roberts' error-detection-based
principle of operation in favor of Umeda's "normal-state" operation of
sensing touch signals. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants' contention
that the Examiner's proposed combination would allegedly require removing
Roberts' fundamental principle of error detection in favor of a "normal-
state" operation that does not detect an error state (Reply Br. 3--4) is
unsubstantiated on this record and, therefore, has little probative value. See
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo
Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
("Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence."). Therefore, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner's proposed combination impermissibly
changes Roberts' principle of operation or renders it unsuitable for its
intended purpose.
6
Appeal 2018-001655
Application 14/067 ,545
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 2-5.
Ans. 6-11. Because this rejection is not argued separately with particularity,
we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons previously
discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5.
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
7