Ex Parte Reynolds et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

13034696 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,696 02/24/2011
65214 7590 03/31/2016
SYNAPTICS C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Kurth Reynolds
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.
SYNA-20091207-AlC 1311
EXAMINER
RAYAN, MIHIR K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
patents@wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH KUR TH REYNOLDS,
SHAHROOZ SHAHPARNIA, ADAM SCHWARTZ, and
JOEL JORDAN
Appeal2014-007412
Application 13/034,696
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Synaptics, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007412
Application 12/034,696
Invention
The claims are directed to a capacitive touch screen having a
combination electrode which sends a transmitter signal during a non-display
update time period associated with row update of the display device.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of capacitive sensing using an integrated
capacitive sensor device and display device, said method
compnsmg:
transmitting a transmitter signal with a combination electrode of
said integrated capacitive sensor device and display device, said
combination electrode configured for both capacitive sensing
and display updating, wherein said transmitter signal transitions
at least twice during a non-display update time period associated
with row update of said display device;
updating a display of said display device during an update time
period; and
receiving a resulting signal with a receiver electrode of said
integrated capacitive sensor device and display device during
said non-display update time period, said resulting
signal corresponds to said transmitter signal.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hargreaves US 7,031,886 Bl Apr. 18, 2006
2
Appeal2014-007412
Application 12/034,696
Imai
Krah
Hotelling
Ise
Wu
US 2007/0182723 Al Aug. 9, 2007
US 2008/0309625 Al Dec. 18, 2008
US 2008/0309627 Al Dec. 18, 2008
US 2010/0053380 Al Mar. 4, 2010
US 2011/0042152 Al Feb. 24, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 10-13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hotelling and Wu. Ans. 2---6.
Claims 3-5, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hotelling, Wu, and Hargreaves. Id. at 6-9.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hotelling, Wu, Hargreaves, and Krah. Id. at 9-11.
Claims 7-9, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hotelling, Wu, and Ise. Id. at 11-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own:
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-17 (mailed Sep. 20, 2013)) and the
findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-23
(mailed Apr. 21, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
3
Appeal2014-007412
Application 12/034,696
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16
Appellants argue the combination of Hotelling and Wu does not teach
"a transmitter signal transitions at least twice during a non-display update
time period associated with row update of said display device," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11 and 16. App. Br. 10-11, 15-16,
20-21; Reply Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue "the specification and
Figure 6[] stand in direct opposition to" Hotelling's vertical blanking time
period teaching a time period associated with row update. App. Br. 11, 16,
21; Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hotelling
teaches transmitting a capacitive sensing signal using a driven electrode that
provides both capacitive sensing and display updating during different
respective time periods. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Hotelling i-fi-1 31, 34, 50, Figs.
2, 5). In particular, Hotelling's driven electrode provides capacitive sensing
during a vertical blanking time period, as Appellants and the Examiner
agree. App. Br. 7, 9 (citing Hotelling Fig. 7); Ans. 17. The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, that Hotelling's vertical blanking time period is
a time period associated with row update because the vertical blanking time
period occurs after the last display row of Hotelling's display device is
updated and before the first display row of the display device is updated.
Ans. 17; Final Act. 5; see Hotelling Fig. 7, i-fi-137--43.
Appellants' argument, that a vertical blanking time period cannot be a
time period associated with row update, is not commensurate with the scope
of the claims and, moreover, is contrary to the specification. Appellants
argue that paragraph 93 of the Specification "stand[ s] in direct opposition to
construing [the] vertical blanking time" period as the time period associated
4
Appeal2014-007412
Application 12/034,696
with row update. App. Br. 10-11; see Reply Br. 6. However, paragraph 93
provides "an embodiment" (i.e., an example) in which a horizontal blanking
time period is associated with row update, but paragraph 93 does not provide
a limiting definition excluding vertical blanking time periods from being
associated with row updates. Moreover, paragraph 122 of the Specification,
which Appellants do not discuss, describes "non-display update time
period[ s] associated with row update of the display device (e.g., during the
horizontal blanking time after a display row or during vertical blanking time
after the last display row updated in a frame)" (emphasis added). That is,
paragraph 122 states that the time period associated with row update
includes vertical blanking time periods after the last display row is updated.
Hotelling teaches just such a vertical blanking time period occurring after
the last display row is updated (Hotelling Fig. 7 (showing capacitive sensing
signals 721 provided after the last LCD row write 706), i-fi-137--43).
Hotelling' s vertical blanking period is, therefore, "a non-display update time
period associated with row update," within the meaning of independent
claims 1, 11, and 16.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Hotelling and Wu teaches or suggests a "transmitter signal
transitions at least twice during a non-display update time period associated
with row update of said display device," as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in claims 11 and 16.
Appellants argue the Official Notice taken by the Examiner is
unfounded (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2). Because we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 over Hotelling and Wu, we do not reach the
merits of Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2---6) regarding
5
Appeal2014-007412
Application 12/034,696
Otlicial Notice or the cited supporting reference, Iman (Final Act. 6-9; Ans.
14--22).
Dependent Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20
Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20. See App. Br. 11, 16, 21-27. For
the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they
wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-
20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
6