SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

13863805 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
13/863,805 04/16/2013 Yuji IDE 399009US8 3327
154930 7590 04/27/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
OSORIO, RICARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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 YUJI IDE
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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 1–15. See Final Act. 1. An oral
hearing was held on April 15, 2020. 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 (2014). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Mobile
Communications, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a terminal device and touch input method
with a first sensor to detect a first object based upon a change in magnetic
field and a second sensor to detect a second object based upon a change in
capacitance or resistance. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An information processing device comprising:

a display panel;

an electromagnetic induction-type touch panel disposed
on, under or integrally formed with the display panel and
having a surface area substantially similar to a surface area of
the display panel, the electromagnetic induction-type panel
configured to detect a first object that comes into contact with
or approaches the display panel based on a change in a
magnetic field; and

a capacitive-type touch panel disposed on, under or
integrally formed with the display panel and having a surface
area substantially similar to a surface area of the display panel,
the capacitive-type touch panel configured to detect a second
object that comes into contact with or approaches the display
panel based on a change in capacitance or resistance; and

circuitry configured to process a detection of the second
object by the capacitive-type touch panel differently depending
on a position corresponding to the display panel at which the
second object is detected.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Lee US 6,417,846 B1 July 9, 2002
Engelhardt et al. US 2007 /0242056 A1 Oct. 18, 2007

Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
3
REJECTION
Claims 1–15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Lee.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1–15
With respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 15, Appellant does not
present separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 17. As a result, we
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and will address
Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 1, the Examiner
finds that the Lee reference in Figures 1C (element 21), 8, and 10 teaches
and suggests the use of an induction-type touch panel “disposed on, under or
integrally formed with the display panel and having a surface area
substantially similar to a surface area of the display panel,” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 2–3. The Examiner further finds that
the Lee reference teaches and suggests the capacitive type touch panel
configured to detect a second object that comes into contact with or
approaches the display panel based on a change in capacitance or resistance,
and the Examiner finds element 22 of the Lee reference in the same portions
further teaches and suggests circuitry configured to process a detection of
the second object by the capacitive-type touch panel differently depending
on a position corresponding to the display panel at which the second object
is detected (see also Lee, Fig. 1C, col. 2, lines 36–46). Final Act. 3–4; see
also Ans. 2–3.
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
4
Appellant contends that the Specification discloses that the
electromagnetic induction-type touch panel and that the capacitive-type
touch panel are provided on or under the display panel and both have a
surface area that is substantially similar to the surface of the display panel.
Appeal Br. 5 (See Spec. Figs. 2 and 7). Appellant further contends that both
the Engelhardt and Lee references do not disclose this limitation and “Lee,
however, expressly describes that his alternate sensor area 21 and
capacitance sensor area 22 are disposed in different, non-overlapping, areas
of his device and therefore do not both have a surface area substantially
similar to a surface of the display panel.” Appeal Br. 5; see generally
Reply Br. 1–3.
With respect to Lee not teaching a surface area substantially similar to
the surface of the display panel, Appellant further argues that
Such a configuration is evident from both Figs. 1C and 8
of Lee, which show the separation of the alternate sensor area 21
and the capacitance sensor area 22. Fig. 8 of Lee illustrates that
the alternate sensor area 21 covers an area of X1-X14 and Y1-
Y12 while capacitance sensor area 22 covers an area of X15-X29
and Y13-Y24.
Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellant’s speculation and find that the X #
and Y # labels corresponded to the signals or sensor circuits in the inductive
and capacitive sensor arrays rather than delineating a specific surface “area.”
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive.
Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response
to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final
Act. 3–4; see also Ans. 2–3. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note claim terms
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
5
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are
given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one
of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual
basis for its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)). The one who bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability is the Examiner.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A prima facie case is
established when the party with the burden of proof points to evidence that is
sufficient, if uncontroverted, to entitle it to prevail as a matter of law.
See Saab Cars USA, Inc. v. U. S., 434 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In particular, regarding the Patent Examiner’s burden of production:
[A]ll that is required of the office to meet its prima facie
burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the
rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a
sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the
notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132. As the statute itself
instructs, the examiner must “notify the applicant,” “stating the
reasons for such rejection,” “together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging the propriety of
continuing prosecution of his application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132.

In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We find the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is well supported by the
express teachings and suggestions of the Engelhardt and Lee references.
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant, and we find the Examiner’s
obviousness determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
6
Moreover, we do not find that the Examiner has relied upon speculation in
the present evaluation of the Lee reference. Rather, we find a sufficient
underlying factual basis from Fig. 10 and its corresponding broad
description that the Lee reference teaches and fairly suggests that the
alternative sensor area 21 is “disposed on, under or integrally formed with
the display panel and having a surface area substantially similar to a surface
area of the display panel,” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the
“alternative” nature of the inductive sensor 21 is suggestive as an addition to
the capacitive sensor area 22. See Fig. 8.
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 10 of the Lee reference
shows an LCD module with a first cable connecting the main board unit to
the LCD module and a second cable connecting the alternate sensor area
connecting the main board unit. Final Act. 3. Moreover, the LCD display in
Fig. 10 has characters entered by the pen over a substantial portion of the
LCD display module. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the
alternative sensor area is “disposed on, under or integrally formed with the
display panel and having a surface area substantially similar to a surface area
of the display panel,” as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, we note that Fig. 8 discloses the presence of both a
capacitance sensor area type and an inductive sensor area type in the same
embodiment. Specifically, Lee discloses:
FIG. 8 illustrates alternate sensor area type double-loop
conductor arrangement and capacitance sensor area type double-
loop conductor arrangement. The circuit of alternate sensor area
21 detects wireless induction pen and mouse. Capacitive sensor
area 22 detects finger and static pen. Because alternate sensor
area 21 and capacitive sensor area 22 have a respective wiring
for scan sensor circuit 19, they are separated from each other, and
the user can simultaneously use a finger and a wireless induction
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
7
pen to draw lines on alternate sensor area 21 and capacitive
sensor area 22.
Lee 7:16–26. Because the Lee reference specifically teaches and suggests
simultaneous use of a finger and a wireless induction pen and because the
alternative sensor area encompasses substantially the whole LCD module
area as shown in Fig. 10, we find the Lee reference at least suggestive of
both the capacitive sensor area and the inductive sensor area to be “disposed
on, under or integrally formed with the display panel and having a surface
area substantially similar to a surface area of the display panel,” as recited in
claim 1.
If we adopt Appellant’s argument that the two sensor areas are
separate and non-overlapping, then Fig. 10 leaves no separate area for the
capacitive sensor area 22 on, under, or above the LCD display module.
Consequently, we find Appellant’s position to be unpersuasive of error in
the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
Additionally, Appellant does not identify any “express” teaching and
appears to infer from the wiring electrical connections and labels of Figures
1C and 8 of Lee that the sensors abut each other. Alternatively, Appellant
contends that the two areas (capacitive sensor area 22 and inductive sensor
areas 21) are both on the same plane and this plane lies above or below the
LCD module. We further note that Lee discloses:
Because alternate sensor area 21 and capacitive sensor area 22
have a respective wiring for scan sensor circuit 19, they are
separated from each other, and the user can simultaneously use a
finger and a wireless induction pen to draw lines on alternate
sensor area 21 and capacitive sensor area 22. FIGS. 9 and 10
show a finger and a wireless induction pen simultaneously used.
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
8
Lee 7:21–27. We further note that the Lee reference discloses the use of
ITO (Indium tin oxide (ITO) is an optoelectronic material) (Lee 1:19, 7:37–
39 “A regular commercially available notebook computer or PDA has a
transparent face panel ITO covered on its LCD module.”).
We disagree with Appellant and note that if the wiring diagram
numbering were to dictate the structural “area,” then the induction sensor
area would be located in the top left (first) quadrant of the display and the
capacitive sensor area would be in the lower right (fourth) quadrant leaving
the second and third quadrants without any sensing area. As a result, we
disagree with Appellant’s inference. Rather, we find that Fig. 10 of the Lee
reference shows a capacitive sensor (“transparent face panel ITO covered on
its LCD module”) and an alternative sensor area and its corresponding
disclosure in column 7 discloses:
FIG. 10 illustrates the application of a wireless induction pen to
a LCD module. A regular commercially available notebook
computer or PDA has a transparent face panel ITO covered on
its LCD module. However, this transparent face panel wears
quickly with use, causing great inconvenient to the user. For
example, the impedance of the transparent face panel varies with
time of use, ambient humility. When the transparent face panel
starts to wear, the sensibility of the instrument is affected. In
order to eliminate this problem, the present invention installs
alternate sensor area 22 in the instrument below the LCD
module. A wireless induction pen can send signal through the
LCD module to the printed circuit board of alternate sensor area
22, enabling the related data to be sent to main board unit,
causing the host computer to show written characters on the LCD
module.
(Lee 7:36–50.)
From our review of the teachings and suggestions of the Lee
reference, we find that the alternative sensor area in Fig. 10 corresponds to
Appeal 2016-003202
Application 13/863,805
9
substantially similar area as the LCD module and because the Figs. 1C and
1D combined teach and suggest the use of both sensors types at the same
time, it is readily apparent that both sensors types are suggested to cover the
substantially similar areas as the display. Consequently, we find Appellant’s
argument that Lee does not teach or suggest substantially similar areas to be
unavailing, and we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 1.
Because Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of independent claims 14 and 15 those claims will fall with
representative independent claim 1. Appellant does not set forth separate
arguments for patentability dependent claims 2–13 and they with fall with
representative independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14,
and 15 in their respective dependent claims is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103(a) Engelhardt, Lee 1–15
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