Ex Parte Voelkel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

10599879 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/599,879 10/12/2006 Hardi Voelkel
23550 7590 09/01/2016
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
ALBANY, NY 12207
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.
WEBE-0021 5955
EXAMINER
VALONE, THOMAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2858
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARDI VOEKEL and ULRICH EHRENFREID
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and BRIAND. RANGE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 19--40 of Application 10/599,879 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Non-Final Act. (November 7, 2013).
Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
Because at least one of the claims on appeal has been previously rejected,
see Final Action (April 4, 2013),2 we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Pepperl + Fuchs GmbH is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 1.
2 On October 1, 2013, Appellants filed a Request for Continued
Examination.
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
BACKGROUND
The '879 Application describes a sensor arrangement comprised of
capacitive probes which are distributed over one side of a support, thereby
defining a detection area in which the position of the target object is to be
found. Spec. 1.
Claim 19 is representative of the '879 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
19. Device for the capacitive position finding of a target
object having a plurality of capacitive probes distributed over a
detection area in which a position of the target object is to be
determined,
wherein
a dependence of the probe voltages on the spacing of the target
object from the given capacitive probe is evaluated for position
determination,
the probes are in each case connected across coupling
capacitances to a voltage supply and can be supplied with a
supply voltage, the capacitances of probes to the environment
together with the coupling capacitances in each case forming a
capacitive voltage divider with the probe voltages as middle
voltages of the capacitive voltage dividers, the coupling
capacitances remaining uninfluenced by the target, and
an evaluating device connected to the probes is provided and
which enables the probe voltages to be processed to an output
signal, which is a measure for the position of the target object to
be found.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 19-23, 27-32, and 35--40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger3
and Lambert. 4 Non-Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger, Lambert, and
Ramsdale. 5 Non-Final Act. 6.
3. Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger, Lambert, and
Higgins.6 Non-Final Act. 7.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 19-23, 27-32, and 35--40
as unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger and Lambert. Non-
Final Act. 2. Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection without a
specific reference to any of the rejected claims. See Appeal Br. 6-11. We,
therefore, select independent claims 19, 35, and 40 as representative of the
claims subject to this rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Each of the
dependent claims will stand or fall with its parent independent claim.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 19, 35, and 40 should be
reversed because "neither Eichelberger nor Lambert teaches or suggests an
3 US 4,290,052, issued September 15, 1981.
4 US 6, 724,324 B 1, issued April 20, 2004.
5 US 4,706,203, issued November 10, 1987.
6 US 5,639,989, issued June 17, 1997.
3
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
apparatus, where capacitive voltage dividers are used for determining the
position of a target and where an AC-voltage is coupled onto a capacitive
probe by means of a coupling capacitance which remains uninfluenced by
the target." Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue that neither Eichelberger
nor Lambert teaches or suggests an apparatus in which the capacitance from
a target to each capacitive probe and the coupling voltage to that capacitive
probe create a voltage divider where the voltage of each capacitive probe
(i.e., the middle voltage) is evaluated to determine the target's position. Id.;
see also Appeal Br. 7-8.
We are not persuaded by these arguments and, therefore, affirm the
Examiner's rejection.
First, Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's
finding that Eichelberger describes an apparatus which uses capacitive
voltage dividers to determine a target's position. Eichelberger describes
how the presence of a target, in this case a user's finger, creates touch
capacitance CT between touch electrode 18a and ground potential.
Eichelberger col. 4, 11. 5-34. The creation of touch capacitance CT turns
touch sensor 14 into a T-type capacitive attenuator-i.e., a type of capacitive
voltage divider. Id.; see also col. 6, 11. 24-30 (describing presence of touch
capacitance CT as creating a T-type capacitive voltage divider).
Second, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that Eichelberger describes an apparatus where an AC-voltage is
coupled onto a capacitive probe by means of a coupling capacitance which
remains uninfluenced by the target. See Non-Final Act. Final 2. As shown
in Eichelberger's Figure lb, Eichelberger describes an apparatus in which a
driving signal is provided to transmitter electrode 18b. This signal is
coupled across an insulating layer from transmitter electrode 18b to touch
4
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
electrode 18a. Eichelberger col. 3, 11. 59-64. Because electrodes 18a and
18b are separated by a dielectric layer, they define a capacitor having
capacitance CTR. Id. at col. 3, 11. 61-67. Eichelberger further states that the
signal is coupled out of electrode 18a to receiver electrode 18c via a
capacitance CRc and then supplied to appropriate detecting circuitry. Id. at
col. 3, 11. 67-col. 4, line 4.
The Examiner correctly determined that Eichelberger' s touch
electrode 18a corresponds to the claimed capacitive probe and that each of
the touch electrodes is connected across a coupling capacitance to a voltage
supply. See Non-Final Act. 8-9 Answer 2. As Eichelberger explains,
coupling capacitance CTR is a function of the area of the transmitter
electrode 18b and the thickness and dielectric constant of the insulating of
layer between electrodes 18a and 18b. Eichelberger col. 3, 11. 61-67. CTR,
therefore, is not influenced by the presence or absence of the target.
Third, Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claims 19,
35, and 40 should be reversed because neither Eichelberger nor Lambert
describe or suggest measuring the middle voltage of the capacitive voltage
divider. Appeal Br. 7-8.
The Examiner found that Eichelberger describes an apparatus that
evaluates probe voltages. Non-Final Act. 2.
Appellants argue that this finding is erroneous. In particular,
Appellants argue that
Eichelberger does not measure the voltage of the probe l 8a, i.e.
the voltage present at the electrode l 8a between the target (in
FIG. lb of Eichelberger, finger 12) and the drive potential
present at electrode l 8b. Rather, Eichelberger measures the
voltage present at electrode l 8c, which is coupled to electrode
l 8a by capacitance CRc. In sharp contrast to the claimed
5
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
invention, Eichelberger fails to measure the voltage present at
electrode 18a as is clearly shown in FIG. lb of Eichelberger.
Appeal Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by this argument.
During prosecution, the proposed claims' language is given "the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they
would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's
specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term
"connected" includes a capacitive connection. Thus, Eichelberger describes
the connection of the detector electronics through the capacitive connection
between touch electrode 18a and receiver electrode 18c. Furthermore, the
voltage present at electrode 18c is proportional to the voltage present in
touch electrode 18a. Eichelberger' s apparatus, therefore, relies upon the
voltages present in touch electrodes 18a-i.e., the "middle voltage"-to
determine the target location. In other words, Eichelberger' s apparatus
evaluates the dependents of the probe voltages on the spacing of the target
object from each capacitive probe to determine target location.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 19-
23, 27-32, and 35-40 as unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger
and Lambert.
Rejection 2. Appellants argue: "Ramsdale fails to remedy the
glaring deficiencies of Eichelberger and Lambert. Accordingly, Appellant
submits that claims 24-26 are allowable over the combination of
Eichelberger, Lambert, and Ramsdale." Appeal Br. 12.
6
Appeal2015-002557
Application 10/599,879
As discussed above, we have determined that the Examiner has not
reversibly erred in rejecting independent claims 19, 35, and 40 as
unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger and Lambert. Thus, we
also affirm the rejection of claims 24-26 as unpatentable over the
combination of Eichelberger, Lambert, and Ramsdale.
Rejection 3. Appellants argue: "Higgins fails to remedy the glaring
deficiencies of Eichelberger and Lambert. Accordingly, Appellant submits
that claims 33 and 34 are allowable over the combination of Eichelberger,
Lambert, and Higgins." Id.
As discussed above, we have determined that the Examiner has not
reversibly erred in rejecting independent claims 19, 35, and 40 as
unpatentable over the combination of Eichelberger and Lambert. Thus, we
also affirm the rejection of claims 33 and 34 as unpatentable over the
combination of Eichelberger, Lambert, and Higgins.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 19-
40 of the '879 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7