Ex Parte Shahparnia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13908936 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/908,936 06/03/2013 Shahrooz SHAHPARNIA 106842061300 2435
(P18670US1)
69753 7590 11/01/2017
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
EXAMINER
GUPTA, PARUL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
EOfficeL A @ mofo. com
PatentDocket @ mofo. com
pair_mofo @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAHROOZ SHAHPARNIA,
CHRISTOPHER TENZIN MULLENS, and
MARTIN PAUL GRUNTHANER
Appeal 2017-007294
Application 13/908,93 61
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 8—11, 15—18, and 22—25. Claims 5—7, 12—14,
and 19—21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but are
indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-007294
Application 13/908,936
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ described and claimed invention relates generally to
“synchronization of stylus signals with touch data acquisition and display
refresh in a device.” Spec 122.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method for synchronizing a touch data acquisition
process, a stylus data acquisition process, and a display refresh
process, the method comprising:
synchronizing the touch data acquisition process to the
display refresh process;
detecting a presence of a stylus signal and initiating the
stylus data acquisition process when the presence of a stylus
signal is detected, wherein initiating the stylus data acquisition
process interrupts the touch data acquisition process;
synchronizing the touch data acquisition process to the
stylus data acquisition process; and
synchronizing reporting touch data from the touch data
acquisition process and stylus data from the stylus data
acquisition process with the display refresh process.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Feb. 22, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Dec. 5, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and Reply
Brief filed Apr. 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb.
10, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed June 3, 2013
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-007294
Application 13/908,936
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 8—10, 15—17, and 22—25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zachut (US 2010/0155153 Al,
published June 24, 2010) (“Zachut”), in view of Lu (US 2013/0050101 Al,
published Feb. 28, 2013) (“Lu”), and further in view of Kropivny
(US 2008/0243994 Al, published Oct. 2, 2008) (“Kropivny”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zachut, in view of Lu, in view of Kropivny, and further in
view of Krah et al. (US 2014/0028577 Al, published Jan. 30, 2014)
(“Krah”).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest “synchronizing the touch data acquisition process to the display
refresh process,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 8 and 15. See App. Br. 10. As argued by Appellants,
the aforementioned claim limitation requires synchronization of two
processes, where the synchronization of the two processes is interpreted as
synchronizing the timing of a touch data acquisition process and a display
refresh process, as described in Appellants’ specification. See id', see also
Reply Br. 5. As also argued by Appellants, Lu merely discloses
synchronizing data between two devices (i.e., a stylus and a touch device),
and fails to teach or suggest synchronizing the timing of two different
3
Appeal 2017-007294
Application 13/908,936
processes (i.e., a touch data acquisition process and a display refresh
process).3 See App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 5—7.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. A claim under examination is
given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the underlying
specification. See In re American Acad, of Science Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner found that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “synchronizing the touch data acquisition
process to the display refresh process,” encompasses synchronizing data
exchanged between the two processes as well as synchronizing a timing of
the two processes. See Ans. 3. We agree with Appellants that this
interpretation is not consistent with Appellants’ Specification, as Appellants’
Specification solely describes synchronizing the timing of the touch data
acquisition process and the display reference process, instead of
synchronizing the data exchanged between the two processes. See App.
Br. 10 (citing Specification H 51, 53—54; Figs. 11—12); see Reply Br. 5.
Thus, we conclude the Examiner’s interpretation of the aforementioned
claim limitation is not reasonable in light of Appellants’ Specification. As
Fu fails to teach or suggest synchronizing the timing of a touch data
acquisition process to a display refresh process, the Examiner has failed to
show, on this record, that the combination of the cited references teaches or
suggests “synchronizing the touch data acquisition process to the display
refresh process,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 8 and 15.
3 Appellants’ arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal 2017-007294
Application 13/908,936
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
8, and 15 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—4, 9-11, 16—18, and 22—25,
which depend from one of claims 1,8, and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8—11, 15—18, and
22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5