Ex Parte Teil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2016

13320575 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/320,575 11/15/2011
34814 7590 06/22/2016
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vincent Tei!
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.
CP41918EC 1187
EXAMINER
YANG, NAN-YING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT TEIL, BERTRAND CLOU, and
ALAIN NADIGUEBE
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
formatting added):
1. A touch-screen interface circuit, configured to operate in at
least a first, a second and a third mode, comprising:
[(A)] a first resistive x-plate having
[(i)] at least a first x-terminal connected in said first
mode to a voltage supply and
[(ii)] a second x-terminal connected in said first mode to
a circuit ground;
[(B)] a voltage regulator circuit comprising
[(i)] a floating reference voltage source connected in said
first mode
[(a)] to said second x-terminal, and
[(b )] to a first input of a touch-screen reference
buffer circuit having a second input
connected in said first mode to said first
x-tenninal;
[(ii)] said voltage regulator circuit arranged to control in
said first mode a connection between said voltage
supply and said first x-terminal; and
[(C)] a second resistive y-plate having at least a first y-terminal
and being arranged to apply a local wiper contact to said
first x-plate, said wiper contact having an x-position, a
y-position and a pressure.
2
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-10, and 13-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chen (US
2007 /0139390 Al, published June 21, 2007) and Keskin (US 2009/0251436
Al, published Oct. 8, 2009). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Keskin in various
combinations with other references. 2
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Examiner likens the recited second x-terminal [of claim 1]
to the terminal 125 of FIG. 10 (labeled "YP_UL") [of Keskin].
However, terminal 125 of FIG. 10 is connected to the power
supply portion 134. In contrast, claim 1 provides that the
second x-terminal is connected in a first mode to a circuit
ground. Thus, since FIG. 10 of Keskin shov,r only terminals 126
and 128 as being connected to the ground node (AGND), then
only terminal 126 or terminal 128 can arguably be likened to
the recited second x-terminal. However, in no case is the power
supply portion 134 of Keskin connected to either one of
terminals 126 or 128, as recited by claim 1. Therefore Keskin
fails to show a floating voltage reference source that is
connected to a terminal of a touch-screen plate that is connected
to a ground circuit, as recited by claim 1.
1 As to this rejection, separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 5, 7,
9-10, and 13-15. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2 As to these rejections, separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 4,
6, 8, 11, and 12. Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as
to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
3
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
App. Br. 5, emphases added.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Keskin does not show where the floating
voltage reference source is connected to a first input of a touch-screen
reference buffer circuit. App. Br. 6-7.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Examiner likens the recited touch-screen reference buffer
to the control logic 129 of FIG. 10. While Keskin arguably
discloses where the control logic 129 is connected to the
programmable voltage/current source (i.e., power supply
portion 134), Keskin fails to show any connection between the
control logic 129 and a first x-terminal that is connected to a
voltage source in a first mode. Instead, Keskin discloses where
the control logic 129 is connected to the control inputs of
switches 13 0-13 3 that control the connectivity of the touch
screen to the power supply 134 and to the circuit ground
(AGND). To employ an interpretation that a control input of a
S\'l1itch is "connected to" a node that the S\'l1itch is employed to
control goes beyond a broadest reasonable interpretation.
App. Br. 7, emphases added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants' above recited contentions.
As to above contention 1, the Examiner found Chen discloses
"a second x-terminal ... connected in said first mode to a circuit ground"
(Final Act. 5). The Examiner responded to Appellants' argument by
4
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
restating the finding twice (Ans. 5 and 6) and adding "Chen as modified by
Keskin teaches the claimed subject matters of independent claim 1" (Ans. 7).
First, we point out that "teaches" is not the issue before us. Rather, we
address whether the Examiner has shown that Chen and Keskin together
render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. We conclude that the
Examiner has not. The Examiner is correct in finding that Chen teaches an
x-terminal connected in a first mode to a circuit ground (Final Act. 5), and is
correct in finding Keskin teaches an x-terminal connected in a first mode to
a floating reference voltage source (Final Act. 6). However, we conclude
these findings are not sufficient to show Chen and Keskin together render
obvious the subject matter of claim 1. The Examiner has not shown that
Chen's "first mode" is in any way analogous to Keskin's "first mode."
Nor has the Examiner provided a sufficient articulated reasoning as to how
and why an artisan would combine the teachings of these two independent
x-terminals into a single x-terminal as claimed.
As to above contentions 2 and 3, we agree. Although Keskin (Fig. 10)
teaches a floating reference voltage source (Keskin' s item 134) connected to
an output (Keskin's item 142) of reference buffer circuit (Keskin's item
129), we do not find that Keskin shows a floating reference voltage source
output (e.g., item 141) connected to an input of the reference buffer circuit
( 129) as required by claim 1. Although Ke skin shows the middle four lines
on the left of item 129 are connected to switches 130-133, an artisan would
recognize these as control connections for these four switches. None of
switches 130-133 (see Keskin i-fi-137--41) connects the output (141) of the
floating reference voltage source (134) to an input of the reference buffer
circuit (129). Nor do these switches provide connections from terminals
5
Appeal2015-000277
Application 13/320,575
125/127 to an input of item 129 as is also required by claim 1 ("reference
buffer circuit having a second input connected in said first mode to said first
x-terminal"). Rather, these switches merely provide connections from
output 141 to terminals 125/127, and from terminals 126/128 to ground.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 are reversed.
REVERSED
6