2019003600 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)

Sony Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 25, 2020

2019003600 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2020)

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. 15/498,663 04/27/2017 Takeshi OGITA 10150US03CON 6132 154930 7590 11/25/2020 XSENSUS LLP 200 Daingerfield Road Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER ADAMS, CARL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2020 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): Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKESHI OGITA Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Sony Corporation and Sony Mobile Communications Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “a mobile information terminal having a touch panel device that can detect a touch or proximity of an external conductor such as a finger of a user by detecting, for example, a change in capacitance or the like.” Spec. 1:12–14. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mobile apparatus comprising: a display; a front touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus; a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a side of the mobile apparatus, the side touch panel being formed by extending the front touch panel continuously to a side of the mobile apparatus; and circuitry configured to control the display to display an interface in a vicinity of the side of the mobile apparatus based on a touch input detected at the side touch panel, wherein input areas of the interface are arranged in a reticular pattern and include a plurality of icons aligned in a plurality of horizontal rows and a plurality of vertical columns arranged in the reticular pattern. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hsieh US 2007/0075980 A1 Apr. 5, 2007 Kim US 2010/0085692 A1 Apr. 8, 2010 Karakotsios US 8,698,764 B1 Apr. 15, 2014 Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 3 REJECTION Claims 1, 2, and 4–16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kim, Hsieh, and Karakotsios. Final Act. 2–12. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 4–16 over Kim, Hsieh, and Karakotsios The Examiner finds Kim, Hsieh, and Karakotsios teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds Kim’s transmission region 151 teaches “a front touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Kim Fig. 2A, ¶ 52); see also Ans. 4 (“[T]he transmission region 151 is in fact a touch panel by virtue of the fact that touch inputs applied to the transmission region 151 are sensed by the device so as to determine their location.”), 5–6 (“[T]he transmission region 151 must be considered as at least a part of the touch sensor.”), 7 (“[T]he transmission region 151 is performing as the touch screen.”). In particular, the Examiner further finds Kim’s non-transmission region 152 teaches “a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a side of the mobile apparatus, the side touch panel being formed by extending the front touch panel continuously to a side of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Kim Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 52, 53) In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. “The touch sensors in the non-transmission [region] 152 of Kim, however, are not a continuous extension of a front touch panel Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 4 configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7. ii. “[T]he transmission region 151 in Kim is not a touch panel and cannot fairly be construed as analogous to the front touch panel recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 7–8. “[T]the transmission region 151 itself does not detect the touch; instead the touch is detected by the sensors that ‘surround the transmission region’.” Appeal Br. 9. In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents the following principal arguments: “[T]he transmission region 151 in Kim does not extend continuously to a side of the mobile apparatus to form the touch sensor unit 140.” Reply Br. 2. [W]hile it may be reasonable to interpret Kim as capable of detecting a touch input in the areas of the touch sensors 141 disposed over the non-transmission region 152, Kim fails to teach or suggest that his device is capable of detecting a touch input in the gap between the transmission region 151 and the touch sensor 140. Reply Br. 3. [W]hile Kim states that his touch sensor 140 is capable of detecting touch inputs received in the transmission region 151, Kim fails to disclose how this detection is performed. With respect to detection of a touch input in the gap formed between the transmission region 151 and the touch sensor 140, Kim fails to state that his device is capable of detecting a touch input in this gap, whatsoever, much less describe how such a detection would be performed. Reply Br. 3–4. We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 5 Kim discloses The touch sensor unit 140 may be provided around the transmission region 151 and may be configured to sense whether or not the first case 100 is touched. For example, as shown in FIG. 2B, when a predetermined or preset area of the transmission region 151 is touched, sensors S1, S2, S3 and S4 of the touch sensor unit 140 surrounding the transmission region 151 sense touch positions and touch forces. Although the case wherein touching of the transmission region 151 is sensed is exemplified in FIG. 2B, touching of the non-transmission region 152 of an electronic device in example embodiments may also be sensed. Kim ¶ 52 (emphasis added). Contrary to Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief, we find Kim’s transmission region 151 discloses “a front touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a front side of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1. Put another way, when the transmission region 151 is touched, touch positions and touch forces are sensed (detected). Kim ¶ 52. Thus, the transmission region 151 constitutes a front touch panel configured to detect, as claimed. Similarly, we find Kim’s non-transmission region 152 discloses “a side touch panel configured to detect a touch input to a side of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1 because Kim discloses sensing (detecting) touching of non-transmission region 152. Kim ¶ 52. Finally, Kim discloses non-transmission region 152 formed by extending transmission region 151. Kim Fig. 2A, ¶ 52. Thus, we find Kim discloses “the side touch panel being formed by extending the front touch panel continuously to a side of the mobile apparatus” as recited in claim 1. In reaching our decision, we recognize the role of Kim’s touch sensor unit 140; nonetheless, we determine transmission region 151 and non- transmission region 152 are “touch panels” because the touching of them is Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 6 sensed (detected). Kim ¶ 52. Our interpretation of the term “touch panel” is not unreasonable or overly broad in light of Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. 17:20–18:14 (describing “front touch panel 52, “rear touch panel 56,” and “driving circuit and circuit board 54 includ[ing] . . . touch panel controller 24”); Drawing, Fig. 2 (depicting separate elements 52, 54, 56). Regarding Appellant’s arguments presented in the Reply Brief, these arguments are focused on a gap between transmission region 151 and touch sensor unit 140. See Reply Br. 3–4. For reasons explained above, we determine transmission region 151 and non-transmission region 152 are “touch panels” as recited by claim 1, and the presence of any such gap or touch inputs in the gap does not persuade us of Examiner error. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4–16, which are not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–16 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–16 103 Kim, Hsieh, Karakotsios 1, 2, 4–16 Appeal 2019-003600 Application 15/498,663 7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED