Ex Parte Westerman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2018

12852133 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/852, 133 08/06/2010
69753 7590 10/17/2018
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.
106842037500(P9078US1) 3206
EXAMINER
MUMMALANENI, MRUNALINI YERNENI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2018 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
pair_mofo@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE CARL WESTERMAN,
MARTIN PAUL GRUNTHANER, STEVEN PORTER HOTELLING,
and CHRISTOPHER TENZIN MULLENS
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-25. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Apple, Inc." App. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner objects to claim 10 as depending from a rejected base claim
but otherwise allowable. Final Act. 21.
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to a touch sensor panel having
"non-split" electrodes (rows or columns) that span the edges of the touch
sensitive surface and "split" electrodes that disambiguate the locations of
simultaneous touches on the panel. See Spec. ,r,r 4--5; Figs. 2-3 (illustrating
an ambiguity of simultaneous touches in background art touchpanels ); Figs.
4---6 (illustrating how the invention's split electrodes disambiguate
simultaneous touches).
Claims 1, 13, 16, 20, and 24 are independent. We address the
dispositive issues with respect to claims 1, 16, and 20, reproduced below
with emphasis added.
1. A touch sensor panel comprising:
a plurality of rows formed on a first layer and comprising at least
one non-split row and at least one split row including a plurality
of row subsections; and
a plurality of columns formed on a second layer and comprising
at least one non-split column and at least one split column
including a plurality of column subsections;
wherein the touch sensor panel is configured with at least one
split row and at least one split column located such that a touch
anywhere on the touch sensor panel at least partially overlaps
with at least one split row and at least one split column, and
wherein the rows and columns are individually charged
electrodes capable of detecting a change in capacitance in a
corresponding area of the touch sensor panel and wherein at least
one row overlaps with at least one column.
App. Br. 38 (Claims Appx.).
2
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
16. A method for touch location detection on a touch sensor
panel, the touch sensor panel including a split conductive region
adjacent to a non-split conductive region, the split conductive
region and the non-split conductive region on a same layer, the
method comprising:
determining a signal ratio of subsections of the split conductive
reg10n;
applying the signal ratio to virtual subsections of the non-split
conductive region adjacent to the split conductive region on the
same layer; and
estimating a location of touch on the non-split conductive region
in response to the signal ratio applied to the virtual subsections
of the non-split conductive region.
Id. at 40-41.
20. A method for touch location detection on a touch sensor
panel, the touch sensor panel including a plurality of rows on a
first layer, at least one of which being a split row and another
being a non-split row, and a plurality of columns on a second
layer, at least one of which being a split column and another
being a non-split column and at least one row overlapping with
at least one column, the method comprising:
dividing the touch sensor panel into a plurality of sections, each
of the plurality of sections overlapping, at least partially, one of
the at least one split row and one of the at least one split column;
calculating a sum or an average for each of the plurality of
sections in response to signals from the one split row and one
split column;
calculating a split ratio for each of the plurality of columns and
rows in response to the calculated sums or averages of the
sections; and
3
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
determining a location of touch on the touch sensor panel based
on the split ratios of the plurality of columns and rows.
Id. at 41.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Long et al. (US 2010/0156811 Al; June 24, 2010) and
Ishizaki (US 2010/0328255 Al, published Dec. 30, 2010). Final Act. 4---6.
Claims 2--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Ishizaki, and Geaghan (US 2007/0074914 Al, published Apr. 5,
2007). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Ishizaki, and Utsunomiya et al. (US 2008/0259044 Al, published
Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 7-9.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Ishizaki, Phillip (US 2011/0095997 Al, published Apr. 28,
2011), and Hotelling (US 2006/0097991 Al, published May 11, 2006).
Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Ishizaki, and Pan et al. (US 2010/0289774 Al, published Nov.
18, 2010). Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 16-19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Pan and Borras (US 2010/0134422 Al, published June 3,
2010). Final Act. 13-16.
4
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Utsunomiya, and Borras. Final Act. 16-20.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Long, Utsunomiya, Borras, Ishizaki, and Geaghan. Final Act. 23.
ISSUES
1. Does Long teach or suggest a touchpanel comprising at least
one split row and at least one non-split row, and at least one split column
and at least one non-split column, as recited by independent claims 1 and
13?
2. Are the electrode implementations of Pan and Borras too
dissimilar for the combination of Pan and Borras to be obvious?
3. Are the electrode implementations of Long and Utsunomiya too
dissimilar for the combination of Long and Utsunomiya to be obvious?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Obviousness of Claims 1-15
based on Long and Ishizaki
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] touch sensor panel comprising ... at
least one non-split row and at least one split row" and "at least one non-split
column and at least one split column ... wherein the rows and columns are
individually charged electrodes capable of detecting a change in
capacitance." Independent claim 13 recites "[a] touch sensor panel
comprising: at least one split elongated electrode ... each subsection
capable of generating a separate touch signal ... and at least one non-split
elongated electrode."
5
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
The Examiner cites Figure 8 of Long for teaching split and non-split
rows and Figure 9 of Long for teaching split and non-split columns. Final
Act. 4. Figures 8 and 9 of Long are reproduced below.
ro
CPU
10
Cl'll
FIG.8
6
70b
TO
CPU
TO
CPU
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
Fig. 8 illustrates a bottom layer of transparent conductive material for an
exemplary touch screen sensor assembly. Fig. 9 illustrates a top layer of
transparent conductive material for an exemplary touch screen sensor
assembly.
In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that the Examiner "consider[ s]
each of the quadrants a-d as a touch sensing unit of the touch sensing
assembly shown in Fig. 10 [of Long]. Therefore, each quadrant of Long (for
example, Long: Fig. 8, quadrant 'a') discloses alternating non-split and split
row electrodes)." Ans. 9--10.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding each quadrant a---d of
Long's touchpanel has both split and non-split electrodes, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 13. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Referencing
the rows of Long's touchpanel, Appellants contend:
Long identifies four sets of rows of electrodes coupled to
respective controllers in FIG. 8. Each array includes a plurality
of rows of a longer length and a plurality of rows of a shorter
length forming a zipper-like pattern of alternating shorter length
rows and longer length rows (see Long at paragraph [0039]) ... .
[A] POSIT A could conceivably view the electrode patterns .. .
as being all split[.]
Under no circumstances, however, would a POSIT A . . . view
Long as teaching both split and non-split electrodes. Such a
reading is constructed using an imaginary dividing line between
quadrants a-d[.]
Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. In the Examiner's hypothetical
"touch sensor panel"----e.g., Long's quadrant "a"-the allegedly "split"
7
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
rows----e.g., the right-most portions of rows 2, 4, and 6 of quadrant "a" that
terminate at the hashed line-would not be operative because those portions
are not connected to a controller. Because they are not connected to a
controller, they are not "capable of detecting a change in capacitance" ( claim
1) or "capable of generating a separate touch signal" (claim 13). Long ,r,r 2,
29.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1
and 13. Geaghan, Utsonomiya, Phillip, and Pan do not cure the deficiency
in Long, so we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-12,
14, and 15.
Issue 2: Obviousness of Claims 16-19,
24, and 25 over Pan and Borras
Independent claim 16 recites:
determining a signal ratio of subsections of the split conductive
reg10n;
applying the signal ratio to virtual subsections of the non-split
conductive region adjacent to the split conductive region on the
same layer; and
estimating a location of touch on the non-split conductive region
in response to the signal ratio applied to the virtual subsections
of the non-split conductive region.
App. Br. 40-41 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds "Pan teaches virtual subsections 351 and 352 on
the non-split conductive region" (Final Act. 13) and "determin[ing] [a]
signal ratio of subsections of the split conductive region" (Ans. 6), "but does
not talk of applying the signal ratio to virtual subsections of the non-split
8
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
conductive region" (Final Act. 13; Ans. 6). For applying the signal ratio to
virtual subsections, the Examiner relies on Borras' s teaching of touch
regions as the recited "virtual subsections." Specifically, the Examiner
relies upon Borras' s teaching of determining a signal ratio between
electrodes El--4---which Borras calls a "weighting process" (Borras ,r 37)------
and applying that ratio to a touch region, e.g., touch region 232, determined
by electrodes E5-8, in order to estimate the location of the touch, e.g., one of
touch locations 0-98 within touch region 232. Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that:
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of
the invention to use the concept of virtual subsections of the non-
split conductive region according to the teachings of Borras in
the touch sensor layer of Pan to estimate the location of the touch
on the non-split conductive region to obtain fine estimate of each
touch location in case of multiple touch locations.
Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 7-8.
Appellants argue that:
Pan and Borras' electrode layouts are completely different from
each other and the Final Office Action has not articulated why
the ratio of local electrodes a[ s] taught by Borras would even be
operable using the electrodes of Pan, much less why it would be
obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to make this
modification.
App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 10-12. Appellants contend the Examiner does
not explain how, as alleged, the calculations and layouts can be combined to
pinpoint simultaneous touches. App. Br. 26; see also Final Act. 14
("obvious ... to use [Borras'] concept of virtual subsections ... to estimate
the location of the touch on [Pan's] non-split conductive region [and] obtain
9
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
[a] fine estimate [for] each ... of multiple touch locations"). Appellants
also contend the signal ratio signal ratio calculations and electrode layouts of
Pan and Borras are "completely different." Id.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner mapped the "split
conductive region" to electrodes El--4. Even assuming Borras's "touch
regions" ( e.g., touch region 232) are virtual subsections, Borras's touch
regions cannot be virtual subsections of a non-split conductive region
"adjacent to the split conductive region on the same layer," as recited in
claim 16, because they overlap with the split conductive region (i.e.,
electrodes El--4).
To the extent the Examiner is relying entirely upon Pan to teach the
"split conductive region" and the "non-split conductive region" adjacent to
one another on the same layer, the Examiner modifies Pan's upper and lower
sections 351-52 of the electrodes 31, 33, 35 into virtual subsections. Final
Act. 3, 13; Ans. 5. However, those would also overlap with the split
conductive region (i.e., lower and upper electrodes 31, 33).
Moreover, the Examiner has not explained how Borras' s weighting
process, which depends upon electrodes E 1--4 being arranged in a square
pattern, would apply to the electrode arrangement of Pan. For example,
Figures 2 and 6 of Borras are reproduced below.
10
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
f/G.2
,-1114/·-2:!2
/ .. !,,[l
E5--\
00
00
Eb,
00
00
E7--\
00 I
00
EB,
00
00
6il5
FIG.6
Figure 2 is a diagram of a touch sensor panel according to Borras. Borras
,r 7. Figure 6 is a simplified diagram of a touch sensor panel. Borras ,r 11.
Figure 6 depicts four regional electrodes E5-8 arranged in a square pattern
and, above each regional electrode, four smaller local electrodes arranged in
a square pattern, e.g., electrodes El--4 above regional electrode E5. Borras
,r 19. Figure 2 depicts a similar arrangement of regional and local
electrodes, but they are overlaid by hashed rectangles indicating the touch
regions, e.g., touch region 232, and circles indicating touch locations, e.g.,
touch locations 0-98 within touch region 232. Borras teaches a weighting
process that uses regional electrodes to determine a touch region, and uses
the signal ratio between local electrodes, e.g., El--4, to estimate a touch
location within that region. Borras ,r 3 7. Borras teaches:
For example, if touch region 234 is selected and all four local
electrodes have roughly equal values, then the touch location 36
at the center of the touch region 234 is selected. Or if the values
are not equal, the weighting process is used to select among the
11
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
center 3x3 touch locations 56-58, 68, 69, and 75-77. If only two
local electrodes are active, then a corresponding one of the
border touch locations within the selected touch region is
selected. If only one local electrode is active, then the center
location of that local electrode within the selected regional
electrode is selected. In any case, the relative weight of the
values of the local electrodes identifies the point of gravity within
the selected touch region and the corresponding touch location is
selected.
Id. In other words, Borras' s weighting process depends upon the square
arrangement of its regional electrodes E5-8 and local electrodes El--4. If
electrodes E 1--4 were not arranged in a square pattern, then Borras' s
teaching that when "all four local electrodes have roughly equal values, then
the touch location 36 at the center of the touch region 234 is selected" (id.)
would not result in an accurate touch location.
Figure 4A of Pan is reproduced below.
35.:
:>CH
>:.' :;. ···············•[ F!GAA
12
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
Fig. 4A is a capacitive touch sensing structure in accordance with a second
embodiment of Pan. The Examiner maps the "split conductive region" to
electrodes 31 and 33 and the "non-split conductive region" to electrode 35.
Ans. 6-7. As Appellants assert, the layout of these electrodes is entirely
different from the layout of Borras's local electrodes El--4.
In the Answer, the Examiner says only that it is "commonly known in
the art of capacitive touch panel technology that (i) touch location
determination principles used for a dual layer touch panel with overlapping
electrodes can be applied to single layer touch panels, and (ii) the same
touch location determination steps can be performed for different shaped
electrodes." Ans. 8.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not explained
sufficiently how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the weighting process of Borras, which depends upon a square
arrangement of local electrodes E 1--4, to determine and apply a signal ratio
to "virtual subsections" 351 and 352 of the very differently shaped
electrodes 31, 3 3, and 3 5 of Pan.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 16 and of independent 24. We also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 17-19 and 25, which depend therefrom.
Issue 3: Obviousness of Claims 20-23
based on Long and Utsonomiya
Independent claim 20 recites a "method for touch location detection
on a touch sensor panel ... comprising ... calculating a sum or an average
... calculating a split ratio ... and determining a location of a touch on the
13
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
touch sensor panel based on the split ratios of the plurality of columns and
rows."
The Examiner relies on Long for the touch sensor panel including a
plurality of rows, including split and non-split, on a first layer, and a
plurality of columns, including split and non-split, on a second layer. Final
Act. 1 7. The Examiner concedes that "Long does not go into the details of
the computations" and relies upon Utsonomiya for teaching the "calculating"
steps and the "determining" step. Id. The Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to "use the estimation of Utsunomiya for the signals detected
by the subsections of a split row or split column of the split electrodes of
Long ... to obtain accurate touch detection [] with [a] simplified
... manufacturing process ... having fewer electrodes." Id. at 18.
Appellants argue "[i]t would not be obvious to use elements of
calculations of touch location performed by Utsunomiya and/or Borras in the
touch sensor panel of Long because each reference discloses a distinct touch
calculation specifically selected for the specific electrode layout disclosed in
the reference." App. Br. 30-31; see also Reply Br. 13. According to
Appellants, "[t]here is no purpose for or further benefit to using the
summing calculation of Utsunomiya for Long's electrode layout. The stated
motivation does not provide any explanation for why a POSIT A would mix
Utsunomiya's touch calculation into Long's different electrode layout and
touch calculations." App. Br. 32.
We agree with Appellants. Utsunomiya's summing calculation is
contingent upon the configuration of its electrodes 51, 52. Utsunomiya
,r,r 74--79; Figs. 4--5. Figure 5 of Utsonomiya is reproduced below.
14
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
Cf:.'5
:; '
~ ................. ..
L,,". CP4
...... ._..,.._ ___ _
' ' ,
I ; '
' < I {~'"''
! L CP2
' >
' j CP'1
.• -) t
~ ; ; ~
4 3 2 1 G
FIG.5
y
~
s- -·i- -··-·-·--- ---- --- -----------· ·" · r· .... " .. "'"'
tJ.- .. ---, :------------.: I
LCl LGR
Figure 5 of Utsonomiya is a view showing a method of calculating a
coordinate. Utsunomiya ,r 39. As can be seen, left electrodes 51 and right
electrodes 52 are intercalated, span each other's entire lengths, and gradually
increase/decrease in area along opposing directions. Id. By this
configuration, "a ratio of the width of one-side detection electrode ... to the
width of the other-side detection electrode ... is changed according to the
first direction." Id. Abstract. The summing calculation uses this specific
relationship of the electrodes 51, 5 2 to determine a touch' s x-coordinate
position (left-right sliding) as the signal ratio LCL:LCR of summed signals
for several left electrodes 51 (LCL) and summed signals for several right
electrodes 52 (LCR). Id. ,r 99.
15
Appeal 2018-003159
Application 12/852, 133
Long's electrode layout does not have the above features. Long Figs.
8-10. Thus, the modification of Long in view of Utsunomiya would
"involve more than the simple substitution of one known element for another
or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for
the improvement." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Accordingly, "it is necessary ... to look to interrelated teachings" of Long
and "this analysis should be made explicit." Id. The Examiner provides no
such analysis. Rather, the Examiner summarily concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art: "would not be hindered" by the above
considerations (Ans. 17); "would try to adopt the principles of touch
location" available (id. at 18); and, in "looking for methods to accurately
determine precise touch locations[,] would consider the teachings of
Utsunomiya and find them adaptable" (id.).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20,
or of claims 21-23, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-25.
REVERSED
16