Ex Parte Westerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

11818477 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111818,477 06/13/2007
69753 7590 08/01/2016
APPLE c/o MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LA
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Wayne Carl Westerman
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.
106842006600(P5007US1) 1974
EXAMINER
BLANCHA, JONATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
EOfficeLA@mofo.com
PatentDocket@mofo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE CARL WESTERMAN, JOHN GREER ELIAS,
STEVE PORTER HOTELLING, and DUNCAN KERR
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-7, 12-17, 19-22, 25, and 56---62. (Appeal Br. 5.)
Claims 8-11, 23, 24, and 27-55 are withdrawn. (Id. Claims Appx. at 12-13,
16-22.) Claims 18 and 26 are cancelled. (Id. at 14, 17.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b )(1 ).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a panel which detects input (such as
touch or proximity), in which the sensor granularity of the panel can be
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477
adjusted such that different areas of the display include different
granularities at a given time. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 7, 20, 30, Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A method for controlling the power of a touch enabled
device comprising a touch enabled display, the touch enabled
display comprising a plurality of data lines, a plurality of
stimulus lines, and a plurality of touch pixels placed along the
display at a predetermined initial granularity at a first time, the
method comprising:
selecting a first portion of the display which requires a first
level granularity at a second time; and
dynamically changing the granularity of touch pixels to
the first level at a display hardware level by activating the
plurality of stimulus lines and deactivating one or more of the
plurality of data lines in the selected first portion of the display
during the second time,
wherein the granularity of touch pixels in a second portion,
different than the first portion, of the display is at the
predetermined initial granularity, different from the first level
granularity, during the second time.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7, and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Resman (US 6,459,424 Bl; Oct. 1, 2002),
Primm (US 5,554,828; Sep. 10, 1996), Kong et al. (US 2004/0090431 Al;
May 13, 2004), and Wright (US US 2008/0277171 Al; Nov. 13, 2008).
(Final Action 2-15.)
2
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Resman, Primm, Kong, Wright, and Kocienda et al.
(US 2007/0152980 Al; July 5, 2007). (Final Action 15-23.)
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Resman, Primm, Kong, and Wright. (Final Action 23-
28.)
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Resman, Primm, Kong, Wright, and Kocienda. (Final
Action 29-30.)
The Examiner rejects claims 58---60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Resman, Primm, Kong, Wright, and Kimoto et al. (US
2005/0264589 Al; Dec. 1, 2005). (Final Action 30-32.)
The Examiner rejects claims 61 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Resman, Primm, Kong, Wright, Kocienda, and Kimoto.
(Final Action 33-35.)
Issues
Did the Examiner err in finding that Resman and Primm, in
combination with Kong and Wright, teach or suggest the activation of a
plurality of stimulus lines, as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Wright, in combination with
Resman, Primm, and Kong, teaches or suggests the deactivation of one or
more data line?
3
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477
ANALYSIS
"by activating the plurality of stimulus lines"
Resman is directed to a screen with sensors which can be used in a
high-resolution mode or a low-resolution mode, depending on where a touch
input is sensed on the screen. (Resman Abstract, 7:12-28.) Primm is
directed towards a pen-based system where input from the pen is detected,
and in which power can be conserved by powering a subset of the sensors
resulting in lower resolution sensing. (Primm Abstract, 8:45-52.) The
Examiner finds that both Resman and Primm disclose a plurality of stimulus
lines, correlating the claimed "plurality of stimulus lines" to every other
horizontal electrode 41H disclosed in Resman (Final Action 2) and every
other stimulus line disclosed in Primm (id. at 3.) The Examiner further finds
that Primm discloses activating the plurality of stimulus lines. (Id. at 4.)
Appellants argue that, in both Resman and Primm, when a change is
made to use a display with lower granularity scanning; this would result in
the activation of only a portion of the stimulus lines of the disclosed
displays. (Appeal Br. 7 .) Therefore, Appellants argue that activation of all
the stimulus lines in Resman "would unnecessarily require a greater
processing power (without affecting the resolution)" and that activation of
all the stimulus lines in Primm "would unnecessarily consume more power."
(Id.) Thus, Appellants argue "there would [be] no motivation to modify
Primm to activate the plurality of stimulus lines."
Appellants' argument is, at its heart, an argument regarding claim
construction. The Examiner correctly notes that "[t]he Appellant is ...
equating 'all of the stimulus lines' with the 'plurality of stimulus lines"'
(Answer 36.) The Examiner concludes that "[t]he claims are broad, and do
4
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477
not require that all of the stimulus lines are activated, only that the 'plurality
of stimulus lines' are activated." (Id. 35.)
In their Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter, Appellants direct us
to several paragraphs of the Specification, including one containing the
disclosure that, "in some embodiments, none of the stimulus lines 306 are
deactivated." (Spec. i-f 43, cited in Appeal Br. 2.) However, Appellants have
failed to provide a persuasive argument that the claim limitation that a
plurality of the stimulus lines, when given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, requires that all stimulus lines in the claimed device be
activated, and that no stimulus line be deactivated. Because "applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the prior art combination
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
"deactivating one or more of the plurality of data lines"
Appellants argue that Wright does not teach the deactivation of data
lines, because Wright teaches that data lines are coupled together (but not
deactivated) in order to reduce power consumption. (Appeal Br. 7 .)
However, the Examiner finds that the deactivation of the plurality of data
lines is taught or suggested by Primm. (Final Action 4 ("see column 8, lines
46-53 [of Primm], only every other line, for example, is powered to conserve
energy, and so every other data line will be deactivated, while all lines are
powered for high resolution detection).") The Examiner makes findings in
Wright in the alternative to Primm's disclosures regarding the activation of
stimulus lines. Because Appellants' argument failed to address the
5
Appeal2014-009928
Application 11/818,477
Examiner's findings with respect to Primm, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error regarding this issue.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Resman, Primm, Kong, and Wright teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 12, 21, and 22 and dependent claims 2-7, 13-17, 19, 20,
25, and 56-62, not separately argued or argued on substantially the same
basis (Appeal Br. 8-10). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-7,
12-17, 19-22, 25, and 56-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
of Resman, Primm, Kong, and Wright.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims claims 1-7, 12-
17, 19-22, 25 and 56-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Resman, Primm, Kong, and Wright.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6