Ex Parte Shepelev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2018

14750721 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
141750,721 06/25/2015
98024 7590 06/05/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Petr SHEPELEV
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/130051US06 6997
EXAMINER
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2018 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):
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETR SHEPELEV, CHRISTOPHER A. LUDDEN,
JEFFREY LUKANC, STEPHEN L. MOREIN, GREG P.
SEMERARO, and JOSEPH KURTH REYNOLDS 1
Appeal2018-001080
Application 14/7 50, 721
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17, 19, and 20, all pending claims of the
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Synaptics Incorporated, which is the real party
in interest according to the Brief. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 18 is cancelled. See Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal2018-001080
Application 14/750,721
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention is directed to "a display device having a
capacitive sensing device, [and] a processing system." Abstract. 3
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with the limitation at issue
emphasized:
1. A processing system for an input device, the processing
system comprising:
a sensor module, comprising sensor circuitry configured
to couple to a plurality of sensor electrodes, the sensor module
is configured to drive a first sensor electrode of the plurality of
sensor electrodes to acquire first changes of absolute
capacitance during a first non-display update period of a display
frame and a second sensor electrode of the plurality of sensor
electrodes to acquire second changes of absolute capacitance
during a second non-display update period of the display frame,
wherein the first non-display update period and the second non-
display update period occur between different pairs of display
line update periods of the display frame and are at least as long
as a display line update period the display frame.
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed
June 25, 2015 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
November 16, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief filed May 12, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed September 13, 2017; and
the Reply Brief filed November 10, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-001080
Application 14/750,721
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--8, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2012/0218199 Al; Aug. 30,
2012) ("Kim"). Final Act. 3-12.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Kim in view of Lundstrom et al. (US 2013/0088372 Al;
Apr. 11, 2013) ("Lundstrom"). Final Act. 12-18.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Kim in view of Hotelling et al. (US 2008/0062147 Al; Mar. 13, 2008)
("Hotelling"). Final Act. 18-20.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kim
in view of Saitoh et al. (US 2014/0333563 Al; Nov. 13, 2014) ("Saitoh").
Final Act. 20-23.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Kim in view of Saitoh and Lundstrom. Final Act. 23-25.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.39(a)(l).
ISSUE
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner errs in finding Kim discloses "a sensor
module ... wherein the first non-display update period and the second non-
display update period occur between different pairs of display line update
periods of the display frame," as recited in illustrative claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-001080
Application 14/750,721
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 102 Rejection
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Kim discloses the
limitation at issue because "[t ]he Examiner clearly states ... that [in Kim]
first display update period G 1 is in the Nth frame while second display
update period G3 is in the (N + l)th frame." Reply Br. 6 (citing Ans. 4).
Appellant continues:
Furthermore, since the first display update period G 1 and the
second display update period G3 are in different frames, it is
impossible for any of the first and second non-display update
periods as annotated by the Examiner in Figure 12 to "occur
between different pairs of display line update periods of the
display frame," as recited by claim[] 1.
Reply Br. 7 (citing Ans. 3--4).
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant urges claim 1
must be interpreted in light of Appellant's Specification to mean "'the first
non-display update period and the second non-display update period occur
between different pairs of display line update periods of the [same] display
frame."' Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 6. In view of
Appellant's proffered interpretation, with which we concur, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not established Kim's disclosure of a
Display Drive Section in the Nth frame and a Display Drive Section in the
(N + 1 )th frame discloses "different pairs of display line update periods of
the display frame," as in claim 1.
"Anticipation requires that all of the claim elements and their
limitations are shown in a single prior art reference." In re Skvorecz, 580
F.3d 1262, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the Examiner fails to demonstrate
that Kim discloses every limitation of claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-001080
Application 14/750,721
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, based on the record before us,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claim 11, which recites commensurate limitations
as those discussed above, and, for the same reasons, dependent claims 4--8,
14, and 15.
35 USC§ 103 Rejection
We do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim
1 7, which also recites the limitation at issue, for similar reasons. We also do
not sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20, which
variously depend from claims 1, 11, and 17 and, thus, also recite the
limitation at issue, for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--8, 11, 14,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12,
13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
5