Ex Parte Vandermeijden

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

14041531 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
14/041,531 09/30/2013 Tom Vandermeijden SYNA-20130301-01 5723
111408 7590 05/02/2017
Osiha T iana T T P/S»vnar>tirs;
EXAMINER
909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
Houston, TX 77010
LAM, VINH TANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
hathaway@oshaliang.com
docketing@oshaliang.com
lord@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM VANDERMEIJDEN
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,5311
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to determining absolute
capacitive images, transcapacitive images, and hybrid capacitive images
based on information obtained from a plurality of sensor electrodes. See
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Synaptics Incorporated.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A method of determining a hybrid capacitive image
comprising:
acquiring a transcapacitive image, a first absolute
capacitive profile, and a second absolute capacitive profile with
a plurality of sensor electrodes;
determining an absolute capacitive image as a function of
said first absolute capacitive profile and said second absolute
capacitive profile; and
determining a hybrid capacitive image as a function of
said absolute capacitive image and said transcapacitive image.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19-21, and
24—27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grivna et al. (US
2011/0025629 Al; published Feb. 3, 2011) (hereinafter “Grivna”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 12, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Grivna and Sobel et
al. (US 2013/0176271 Al; published July 11, 2013) (hereinafter “Sobel”).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Grivna and Wu et al.
(US 2013/0257797 Al; published Oct. 3, 2013) (hereinafter “Wu”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Grivna and
Mohindra (US 2014/0327644 Al; published Nov. 6, 2014).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 11, 22, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Grivna and
Levesque et al. (US 2015/0009168 Al; published Jan. 8, 2015) (hereinafter
“Levesque”).
2
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the July 15, 2015 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—20)
and (2) the June 8, 2016 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—20). We highlight
and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Absolute capacitive image
Appellant argues Grivna fails to teach or suggest “determining an
absolute capacitive image as a function of said first absolute capacitive
profile and said second absolute capacitive profile,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2—3. “Absolute capacitance” is synonymous with
“self capacitance” (Spec. 126), and both the Examiner and Appellant agree
that the term refers to “the capacitive coupling between [a] sensor
electrode[] and an input object.” See Reply Br. 2; Ans. 3; see also Grivna
149 (describing self capacitance as being capacitance “between the sensor
element and a reference node such as ground”). An “absolute capacitance
profile” comprises measurements of absolute capacitance of sensors that are
arrayed along an axis. Spec. 141. Appellant argues Grivna teaches “X and
Y capacitive profiles,” but is silent concerning (i) absolute capacitive
images, as well as (ii) determining absolute capacitive images as a function
of absolute capacitive profiles. App. Br. 8 (citing Grivna H 59, 64).
The Examiner finds Grivna teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 3—6. The Examiner finds an “absolute capacitive image” is
3
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
defined in the Specification as being “[a] set of measurements from the
capacitive pixels [that is] . . . representative of the capacitive couplings at the
pixels.” Ans. 4 (citing Spec. 140). The Examiner finds Grivna, thus,
teaches or suggests determining an absolute capacitive image by measuring
values (i.e., a set of measurements) of self capacitance of pixels. See Ans.
4—5 (quoting Grivna 149 (reciting, in part, “controller 330 is capable of
measuring . . . self capacitances of sensor elements (between the sensor
element and a reference node such as ground)”); citing Grivna Fig. 3B).
The Examiner also finds Grivna teaches determining the absolute
capacitive image as a function of absolute capacitive profiles. See Ans. 5—6.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Grivna teaches or suggests measuring
the self capacitance of each sensor in a sequence (i.e., a profile, such as a
column of sensors or a row of sensors) for a sensor array (e.g., N rows by M
columns). Id. (citing Grivna 1 57; Fig. 3B). Grivna’s Figure 3B, shown
below, illustrates two examples of these profiles (i.e., X axis histogram 360,
Y axis histogram 340). See Ans. 5—6 (citing Grivna Fig. 3B; || 49, 59, 64).
4
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
may
jm*
i •
i S
f V
Figure 3B of Grivna illustrates “a touchscreen controller and sensor
array.” Grivna 19. The Examiner finds Grivna teaches or suggests an
absolute capacitance image (i.e., a set of measurements at 351—354, which
correspond to the intersection of the peaks of the profiles, and are caused by
contacts on the touchscreen) that is a function of self capacitance
measurements of the X axis profile 360 (which has two peaks 361 and 362)
5
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
and the Y axis profile 340 (which has two peaks 341 and 342). See Ans. 5—6
(citing Grivna Fig. 3B; || 49, 59, 64).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree Grivna teaches determining an absolute capacitive
image (e.g., measurements at 351—354) as a function of the first absolute
capacitive profile (X axis histogram) and the second absolute capacitive
profile (Y axis histogram). See Grivna Fig. 3B; || 49, 59, 64.
Our above reasoning and findings are also applicable to these same
arguments Appellant sets forth for claims 9, 20, and 26.
(2) Hybrid capacitive image
Appellant argues Grivna fails to teach or suggest “determining a
hybrid capacitive image as a function of said absolute capacitive image and
said transcapacitive image,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br.
2—3. “Transcapacitance” is synonymous with “mutual capacitance” and
refers to “the capacitive coupling between sensor electrodes.” See Spec.
127; Reply Br. 2; Ans. 3; see also Grivna 149. Appellant argues Grivna
instead teaches “mutual capacitive sensing at selected locations where a
possible touch has been indicated by a histogram (e.g., the XJY profile
sensing illustrated in Figure 3B).” App. Br. 8. Appellant contends Grivna is
“silent with respect to ... a hybrid capacitive image” and “never utilizes a
transcapacitive image or transcapacitive measurement in any sort of a
function.” Ans. 8—9.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Grivna teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Ans. 6—11, 13. We also agree with the Examiner that
“transcapacitive image” refers to “measured values of mutual capacitances’
locations” (Ans. 6—7 (citing Spec. 162; Grivna 149, Fig. 3B)), and that
6
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
Grivna teaches or suggests transcapacitive images. Ans. 10-11 (citing
Grivna |49 (teaching controller 330 can measure mutual capacitances
between sensors, including “all or a portion of the intersections of sensor
elements in the sensor array”), Fig. 3B).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, in accordance with the claim
language, that a hybrid capacitive image is based on an absolute capacitive
image and a transcapacitive image. See Ans. 8—11. We agree with the
Examiner that Grivna teaches or suggests determining a hybrid capacitive
image (i.e., measurements at actual contact locations 353, 354) based on the
absolute capacitive image measurements (i.e., measurements at 351—354)
and the transcapacitive image measurements (i.e., measurements at the
corresponding intersections (e.g., 320(2) and 310(3); 320(2) and 310(8);
320(7) and 310(3); 320(7) and 310(8))). See Ans. 8—11 (citing Grivna Fig.
3B; || 49 (teaching that controller 330 may, after detecting a presence of a
contact using a self capacitance sense method, “switch to a mutual
capacitance sense method to perform a scan in tracking mode of all or a
portion of the intersections of sensor elements in the sensor array 300 to
resolve the actual location of one or more contacts”), 57, 59, 64, 66).
Accordingly, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred regarding the
first-stated rejection of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Our above reasoning and findings are also applicable to these same
arguments Appellant sets forth for independent claims 9, 20, and 26, also
rejected under the first-stated rejection. Grouped claims 9, 20, and 26 fall
with claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-007651
Application 14/041,531
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, 20, and 26, as well as grouped claims 3,
6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, and 27, as Appellant does not provide separate
arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s
(i) rejection of claims 2, 12, 23, and 29; (ii) rejection of claims 4, 7, 14, and
17; (iii) rejection of claims 5, 8, 15, and 18; and (iv) rejection of claims 11,
22, and 28, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments for their
patentability. Regarding rejections 2—5, arguments not made are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—29.
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
8