Ex Parte Simmons

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2018

14448472 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/448,472 07/31/2014
12323 7590 08/08/2018
Baker Botts L.L.P./ Atmel Corporation
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin J. Simmons
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.
080900.2746
(09047QRG-COA
CONFIRMATION NO.
7280
EXAMINER
YANG, KWANG-SU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2018 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN J. SIMMONS 1
Appeal 2018-002171
Application 14/448,472
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21, 26-28, 30, 31, 33-35, and 37--41. Claims 1-20, 22-25, 29, 32,
36, and 42 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Atmel Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 6, 2017
("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Jun. 5, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's
Answer, mailed Oct. 20, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed Dec. 20,
2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal 2018-002171
Application 14/448,472
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to improving accuracy for detecting a
position of a received touch with a position sensor on a capacitive touch
screen panel. Spec. ,r 6.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 21 is representative:
21. A panel for a touch position sensor for determining
a position of a received touch, comprising:
a first panel region comprising a first plurality of
electrodes and a second panel region comprising a second
plurality of electrodes, the first and second panel regions having
a region of overlap;
a first controller operable to, in response to a
received touch in the region of overlap, receive a signal
indicative of a capacitance value associated with each of
a first plurality of electrodes associated with the first
panel region and at least some of a second plurality of
electrodes associated with the second panel region and
operable to determine a position of the received touch in
a location in the first panel region based on the received
signals indicative of a capacitance value associated with
each of the first plurality of electrodes and at least some
of the second plurality of electrodes;
a second controller operable to, in response to the
received touch in the region of overlap, receive a
capacitance value associated with each of the second
plurality of electrodes and at least some of the first
plurality of electrodes and operable to determine a
position of the received touch in a location in the second
panel region based on the received signals indicative of a
capacitance value associated with each of the second
plurality of electrodes and at least some of the first
plurality of electrodes, wherein the determined location
in the first panel region and the determined location in
the second panel region are different; and
2
Appeal 2018-002171
Application 14/448,472
a multiplexer coupled to the first controller and the
second controller, the multiplexor operable to determine which
one of the determined location in the first panel region and the
determined location in the second panel region for the received
touch is closest to the position of the received touch in the
region of overlap.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x).
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 26-28, 30, 31, 33-35, and 37-
413 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Peng et al., (US
8,144,125 B2; issued March 27, 2012) and Olson (US 2009/0066669 Al;
published March 12, 2009). Ans. 4--8; see Final Act. 3-8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the combination of Peng and Olson does not
teach or suggest a touch position sensor with a multiplexer "to determine
which one of the determined location[ s] in the first [ and] second panel
region[ s] for the received touch is closest to the position of the received
touch in the region of overlap," as recited in independent claim 21. App. Br.
12-13; Reply Br. 2-3. The claim also requires that "the determined location
3 The Final Action lists claims 21, 26-28, 30, 31, 33-35, and 37--42 as
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Peng and Olson.
Final Act. 3. In the Final Action, the Examiner also rejected claim 42 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards
as the invention. Id. at 2. Appellant filed a claim amendment (Claims
App'x) with the Appeal Brief, cancelling claim 42. The Examiner entered
the amendment in the Advisory Action mailed July 10, 2017. In the
Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejections of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2018-002171
Application 14/448,472
in the first panel region and the determined location in the second panel
region are different."
The Examiner relies on Peng for teaching a touch position sensor with
first and second panel regions connected via controllers to a multiplexer.
Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4. For the recited different determined locations, the
Examiner relies on Olson's difference counts. Final Act. 4---6; Ans. 5-7. In
particular, the Examiner cites to Olson Figures 5A through 5C and touch A,
where the difference counts, i.e., left and right electrode measurements, are
used to determine the position of touch A. Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 5-7, 10-11.
We find Appellant's argument to be persuasive. Notably, although
Olson's left and right electrode measurements are different, one
measurement is not chosen over another as the position closer to the position
of received touch for touch A. Olson, Figs. 5A-5E. Rather, both
measurements are used to determine the position of the received touch in a
location for touch A. Id. Thus, we agree with Appellant that Olson
determines a single location, not two different locations. See Reply Br. 2--4.
It follows that Olson's left and right electrode measurements do not teach or
suggest "the determined location in the first panel region and the determined
location in the second panel region are different." Therefore, Olson cannot
teach or suggest "which one of the determined location[s] in the first [and]
second panel region[ s] for the received touch is closest to the position of the
received touch in the region of overlap."
Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach Appellant's
additional arguments. See App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3--4. For the reasons
discussed, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21, nor do we
4
Appeal 2018-002171
Application 14/448,472
sustain the rejection of independent claims 28 and 35, which recite similar
limitations, and dependent claims 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 37--41.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 21, 26-28, 30, 31,
33-35, and 37--41 is reversed.
REVERSED
5