Ex Parte Trent et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2019

13610698 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/610,698
111408 7590
FBFK/Synaptics
Robert Lord
9 Greenway Plaza
Suite 500
Houston, TX 77046
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/11/2012 Raymond Trent
02/05/2019
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.
38018/130002 4784
EXAMINER
MATTHEWS, ANDRE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2019 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):
rlord@fbfk.law
jhathaway@fbfk.law
docketing@fbfk.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND TRENT and TOM V ANDERMEIJDEN
Appeal 2018-00012 1
Application 13/610,698
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--9, 12-16, 18-23, and 25-27. Claims App'x. Claims 3, 10,
11, 17, and 24 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Synaptics Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
processing system (110) for determining the nature of a user input into
an input device (100). Spec. ,r 1, Fig. 1. In particular, the processing
system includes a sensor module having: ( 1) a plurality of sensor
electrodes for generating sensor values of objects detected in a sensing
region (120) and (2) a force sensor for generating force values indicative
of the force applied by the detected objects on the input surface. Id. ,r,r
24, 33, 43. The processing system (110) further includes a sensor
determination module for determining whether the detected input object
remained in contact with the input surface or whether the object was
lifted from the surface and placed back down. Id. ,r 73, Figures 4 and 5.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below with limitations at issue italicized:
A processing system for an input device, the processing system comprising:
a sensor module comprising sensor circuitry configured to:
operate a plurality of sensor electrodes to generate images of
sensor values indicative of objects in a sensing region
proximate to an input surface at a first rate, wherein the
images of sensor values comprise a first image of sensor
values and a second image of sensor values, the second
image being consecutive to the first image; and
operate, at least throughout a time between the first image and
the second image being generated, at least one force
sensor to generate force values indicative of force applied
to the input surface at a second rate, the force values
comprising a force value generated after the first image
and before the second image; and
a determination module configured to:
determine if an input object detected in the first image and an
input object detected in the second image remained in
2
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
contact with the input surface between the first image
and the second image based at least in part on the force
value generated after the first image and before the
second image.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 15, 16, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,492,979 Bl ("Kent") in
view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0160793 Al ("Rekimoto"). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Rekimoto, and U.S. Pat.
Pub. No. 2010/0302172 Al ("Wilairat"). Final Act. 6-9.
Claims 4, 12, 18, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kent in view ofRekimoto and U.S. Pat. Pub. No.
2011/0239155 Al ("Christie"). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments2 as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 7-18, and the Reply Brief, pages 2--4. We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Examiner's
2 We refer to Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and
conclusions in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (mailed
December 23, 2016) ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief (filed March 23, 2017)
("App. Br."), the Answer (mailed July 28, 2017) ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief (filed September 28, 2017) ("Reply Br") for the respective details.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
3
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 2-11; Ans.
2-15. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings
for emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
Appellants argue that Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Kent and Rekimoto teaches or suggests "the second image being
consecutive to the first image" and "determining if an input object remains
in contact between the first image and the second image using the force
value," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 9, emphasis omitted. In
particular, Appellants argue Kent discloses using force sensors to determine
that a finger made contact with a touch surface, and then using projective
capacitance sensors to determine when the finger is removed. Id. at 10-11
(citing Kent 7:40-8: 15). According to Appellants, the force sensors are not
used in Kent once the initial touch contact is detected; rather, the disclosed
system uses the projective capacitive sensors. Id. Further, Appellants argue
although Kent may disclose a drag operation, it does not disclose
determining that the input object remains in contact between the first image
and the second image using the force value, where the second image is
consecutive to the first image. Id. at 11. Furthermore, Appellants argue that
because the system disclosed in Kent uses the projective capacitive sensors
throughout the drag operation, it cannot distinguish between the dragging
between two positions or tapping on the two different positions. Id. ( citing
Spec. ,r,r 68-70). Additionally, Appellants assert that Rekimoto's disclosure
of determining the magnitude of applied pressure of a scrolling and scaling
action on a sensitive layer does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Kent. Id.
at 11-12. Likewise, Appellants argue that Christie does not cure the noted
deficiencies. Id. at 12.
4
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
These arguments are not persuasive. Kent discloses using force
sensors to detect the magnitude of a sensed force applied to a sensing
surface, and using projective capacitance sensors to determine whether the
applied force is a touch, as well as the position coordinates thereof. Kent
7 :40-59. Kent further discloses that if the system employs a drag motion,
the system generates the required touch position information, and then
generates an un-touch message with final position coordinates when the
projective capacitive sensor indicates an un-touch signal. Kent 8:6-12. As
correctly noted by the Examiner, the disclosed drag motion teaches that a
sustained contact has been maintained with the sensing surface between the
point where the initial pressure is detected to the final point where pressure
is lifted. Final Act. 3. Because the force sensors are used to detect the force
magnitude at those points during the dragging operation, we agree with the
Examiner that Kent teaches or suggests using at least the force sensors
during the dragging operation (i.e., two consecutive points between which a
user input remained in contact with a sensing surface). Id. at 3--4. We
further agree with the Examiner that Rekimoto 's explicit disclosure of using
a sensor force to generate values indicative of forces applied throughout a
time between a first image and a second image during a dragging operation
reinforces the similar operation of Kent's detection system. Id. at 4 (citing
Rekimoto ,r 89), Ans. 11. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kent and Rekimoto
renders claim 1 unpatentable.
5
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
Claim 8
Regarding independent claim 8, Appellants argue that the
combination of Kent, Rekimoto, and Wilairat does not teach or suggest
"initiate an edge user interface action in response to the initial contact
location being an edge region." App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue
although Kent discloses force sensor electrodes in an edge region, the
operation of the force sensor electrodes does not occur in response to the
initial contact location being in an edge region. Id. Rather, they operate
regardless of location of the input object to detect the presence of an initial
touch. Id.
This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the
specific findings made by the Examiner on this point. The Examiner relies
upon Wilairat's disclosure of starting a touch pull-gesture when a contact is
made with an edge region to complement Kent's disclosure of the using
force sensors from the edge region of a touchscreen to detect when a user
has provided a touch input on display. Ans. 12 (citing Wilairat ,r 14).
Because Appellants' arguments are directed to Kent alone, as opposed to its
combination with Rekimoto and Wilairat, as proposed by the Examiner, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the proposed
combination teaches the disputed limitations.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has ignored the express claim
limitation of determining the time of the initial contact location or using time
to determine the initial contact location. App. Br. 14. According to
Appellants, Rekimoto instead discloses using pressure, direction, and
rate/ speed to determine the initial contact. Id. at 14--16 ( citing Rekimoto
,r,r 19, 22). Likewise, Appellants argue that Rekimoto does not teach
6
Appeal2018-000012
Application 13/610,698
determining initial contact location and a time from a force sensor, as
required by the claims. Id. at 16.
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the
Examiner, Rekimoto's disclosure of periodically detecting the magnitude of
the contact pressure as well as the time change thereof teaches or suggests
determining a time of an initial contact from a force sensor value, and using
the determined initial contact time along with a rate of motion to estimate
the initial contact location. Ans. 13-14 (citing Rekimoto ,r 87).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 8.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4--7, 9, 12-16, 18-23, and 25-27,
because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
2, 4--9, 12-16, 18-23, and 25-27.
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
7