2020002124 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2021)

SYNAPTICS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 8, 2021

2020002124 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2021)

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. 15/482,941 04/10/2017 Robert J. BOLENDER SYNP160380 3023 110657 7590 07/08/2021 Paradice and Li LLP (Synaptics) 1999 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 300 Campbell, CA 95008 EXAMINER LAM, NELSON C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/08/2021 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): uspto@paradiceli.com william@paradiceli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT J. BOLENDER and DONALD R. SCHROPP Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON J. CHUNG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, 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 1–11 and 14–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to capacitive sensing active electromagnetic emission cancellation. In a system defining multiple touch-sensitive areas, 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Synaptics Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 2 inverse waveforms of appropriate amplitudes can be used to achieve a net cancellation across the sum of the sensing areas. Spec. ¶ 115. Claim 1,2 reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An input device comprising: a first plurality of sensor electrodes defining a first region, wherein a first portion of the first plurality of sensor electrodes defines a sensing region within the first region, and wherein a second portion of the first plurality of sensor electrodes defines a border region within the first region; a plurality of mitigation electrodes defining a second region that is adjacent to the border region; and a processing system configured to: drive, while driving the first plurality of sensor electrodes with a first modulated signal, the plurality of mitigation electrodes with a second modulated signal that is an inverted copy of the first modulated signal, to mitigate electromagnetic emissions resulting from driving the first plurality of sensor electrodes; and acquire, responsive to driving the first plurality of sensor electrodes with the first modulated signal, capacitive measurements using the first portion of the first plurality of sensor electrodes. 2 We note that Appellant filed an After Final Amendment and the Examiner denied entry of amendment. Advisory Act. 1 (Box 7). We further note that Appellant filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief to correct the claims appendix to the prior un-amended version of the claims, but Appellant did not modify the arguments from the amended claim language. (We further note that the same representative signed all papers from the After Final Amendment through the Reply Brief.) Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chou et al. US 2012/0013563 A1 Jan. 19, 2012 Weinerth et al. US 2014/0092051 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 REJECTION Claims 1–11 and 14–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weinerth in view of Chou. OPINION Petitionable Matters We note that Appellant sets forth arguments regarding a desire for entry of amended claim language. Reply Br. 3–5. This is a petitionable matter to invoke the supervisory authority of the Director and is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Matters are reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 1002 and 1201) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020); see also In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403–04 (CCPA 1971) (stating that there are many kinds of decisions made by Examiners that are not appealable to the Board when they are not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections of claims, and holding that “the kind of adverse decisions of examiners which are reviewable by the board must be those which relate, at least indirectly, to matters involving the rejection of claims”); and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (holding that the refusal of an Examiner to enter an amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, and not by appeal to the Board)). Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 4 The Board normally only considers matters affecting the merits of the invention, i.e., rejections of claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c). Matters not affecting the merits of the invention, such as objections to the claims or Specification or allegations of procedural errors by the Examiner (e.g., refusal of an Examiner to enter an amendment of claims), are to be raised by petition to the Director or to the PTO official to whom the Director has delegated the authority to determine the petition. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181– 183; see also MPEP §§ 1002, 1207.03 (IV). To the extent Appellant wishes to challenge the Examiner’s non-entry of the After Final Amendment, such a challenge must be in the form of a petition to the Director, not by means of an appeal. 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to claims 1–11 and 14–17, Appellant argues the claims with respect to independent claim 1 and contends that claims 11 and 17 contain similar features. Appeal Br. 16. Therefore we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, claims 2–11 and 14–17 will stand or fall with representative independent claim 1. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues that the Chou reference does not disclose or suggest “a second modulated signal that is an inverted or phase-shifted copy of the first modulated signal and has an amplitude that is different than an amplitude of the first modulated signal.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues that the reversal pulse signal Sinv of Chou does not have “an amplitude that is different than an amplitude of” the detective pulse Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 5 signal Sdet. Appeal Br. 8–10; see generally Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant also argues that the Examiner conflates the terms “amplitude” and “phase” in the interpretation of Chou. Appeal Br. 10–11. The Examiner finds that the independent claims do not recite the argued limitations which go to amended claim language that was not entered by the Examiner. Ans. 3, 5, 6. We agree with the Examiner and find that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the language of representative independent claim 1 where “a second modulated signal that is an inverted or phase- shifted copy of the first modulated signal and has an amplitude that is different than an amplitude of the first modulated signal” is not expressly recited in the un-amended language of the claim. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts. . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). We further note that entry or non-entry of the After Final Amendment is a petitionable matter beyond the scope of our review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134. For the reasons discussed above, and on this record, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding the invention recited in representative independent claim 1 and its dependent claims not separately argued. Because Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 11 and 17 and their respective dependent claims, these claims similarly fall with representative independent claim 1 Appeal 2020-002124 Application 15/482,941 6 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent claims 11 and 17 not separately argued and their respective dependent claims not separately argued. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–11, 14–17 103 Weinerth, Chou 1–11, 14–17 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED