Ex Parte Kremin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

13247779 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

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.
13/247,779 09/28/2011 Viktor Kremin CD11050 3901
60909 7590 01/03/2018
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
198 CHAMPION COURT
SAN JOSE, CA 95134-1709
EXAMINER
ANDREWS, BRENT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2018 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):
patents @ cypress.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIKTOR KREMIN and ROMAN OGIRKO
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,7791
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
decision rejecting claims 1—20 in the above-identified application.2 We have
authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation. Appeal Brief 2, Sept. 8, 2015 [hereinafter
Appeal Br.].
2 See Appeal Br.; see also Final Office Action, Nov. 7, 2014 [hereinafter
Final Action]; Examiner’s Answer, Aug. 22, 2016 [hereinafter Answer];
Reply Brief, Oct. 24, 2016 [hereinafter Reply Br.].
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention “relates to the field of touch sensors and, in
particular, to capacitive sensors.” Spec.312. One embodiment is depicted
in Figure 1, which is reproduced below:
FIG, 1 : " ;::
Figure 1 “is a schematic illustration of a touch, or capacitive, sensor array
(or device) 10.” Spec. 131. It includes a plurality of “receive electrodes
(RX) (or sensors)” 12, and a plurality of “parallel sensing circuits (also
referred to as channels, receivers, or receiver inputs) 14.” Id. In Figure 1,
“there are sixteen receive electrodes 12 and four sensing channels 14.” The
sensor array may also include “a transmitter electrode (TX)” corresponding
to each of the lines labeled Xi—Xi6. Id.
3 Specification, Sept. 28, 2011.
2
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
Representative claim 1 is as follows:
1. A method for operating a capacitive sensor array comprising:
receiving a signal from each of a first number of electrodes with
a second number of receiver circuits on a controller
associated with the capacitive sensor array, wherein the
first number is greater than the second number, and
determining if an object is proximate the capacitive sensor array
based on the signals received from the first number of
electrodes.
Appeal Br. Claim App. 1 (emphasis of key limitations added). Independent
claims 11 and 16 contain similar limitations. See id. at 2-4. In claim 1,
Appellants identify the “electrodes” as items 12 of their Specification, and
the “receiver circuits” as items 14 of their drawings. See Appeal Br. 4.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1,2, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being unpatentable over Reynolds.4 See Final Action 4—6.
2. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Maharyta.5 See id. at 6—9.
3. Claims 5—8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Hayakawa.6 See id. at 9-11.
4. Claims 16—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Maharyta and Hayakawa. See id. at
12-15.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants present substantive arguments only for
independent claims 1,11, and 16. See Appeal Br. 9-14. The arguments for
4 Reynolds, US 2010/0295564 A1 (published Nov. 25, 2010).
5 Maharyta et al., US 2009/0153152 A1 (published June 18, 2009).
6 Hayakawa et al., US 2010/0033196 Al (published Feb. 11, 2010).
3
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
claims 11 and 16 are substantially the same as for claim 1, such that claims
11 and 16 stand or fall with claim 1. See id. at 9-11, 13—14. Moreover,
Appellants argue the claims for each rejection as a group. Therefore,
consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016), we limit our discussion to
independent claim 1. Claims 2—20 stand or fall with claim 1.
DISCUSSION
Figure 1A of Reynolds is reproduced below:
CAPACITIVE SENSING DEVICE
100
Figure 1A depicts a capacitive sensing device 100. Reynolds 117. It
includes capacitive sensor array 120 coupled to controller 110. Id. 118.
4
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
Sensor array 120 includes sensor electrodes 122 (122-1 to -4) and activation
regions 124 (124-1 to -6), along with sensor channels 115 (155-1 to -4). Id.
According to Reynolds, the activation regions 124 may be formed in “many
ways, some non-limiting examples of which are illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B,
and 3C.” Id. 119. These figures are reproduced below:
Reynolds Figure 3 A depicts an embodiment of an activation region “where
sensor electrodes . . . cross over one another at different vertical levels and
are separated by some form of dielectric.” Id. 144. Reynolds Figure 3B
depicts an activation region in which “electrodes 301B and 302B are
configured to interdigitate within one another while remaining separated by
a spacing or dialectic.” Id. 145. Figure 3C depicts an activation region in
which physical deflection causes electrodes 301C and 302C to come
together for increased capacitive coupling. Id. 146.
The Examiner finds that Reynolds teaches every limitation in claim 1.
See Final Action 4—5. In particular, the Examiner finds that the six
activation regions 124 in Figure 1A of Reynolds are a “first number of
electrodes” as recited in claim 1, that the four sensor electrodes 122 in
Reynolds are the “second number of receiver circuits,” and that the first
number (six) is greater than the second number (four). Id.
5
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
Appellants argue that the Examiner has incorrectly identified the
“receiver circuits” of claim 1 as the sensor electrodes 122 in Reynolds.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue that the meaning of “receiver circuits” is
well defined in the Specification. Id. at 9-10 (citing Spec. 36, 46).
Appellants argue that in Reynolds, the “receiver circuits” are analogous to
sensor channels 115, rather than sensor electrodes 122. Id. at 10—11 (citing
Reynolds Tflf 23 (describing sensor channels 115 as “inputs, outputs, or
combination inputs/outputs for controller 110”), 19 (describing sensor
channels 115 as “inputs/outputs of an integrated circuit, and can be used to
both transmit and receive information.”)). Thus, according to Appellants, the
number of sensor channels is four. Id. at 11.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We
apply to claim language “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Paragraphs 36 and 46 of the Specification describe embodiments of
the invention that include receiver circuits, see, e.g., Spec, 36, 46, but
Appellants have not pointed to any passage in the Specification that defines
the term “receiver circuits” or is inconsistent with the interpretation given by
the Examiner.
Moreover, as Appellants acknowledge, see Reply Br. 3, Reynolds
discloses four sensor electrodes 122, and four sensor channels 115. See
Reynolds Fig. 1 A. Because they are the same in number, even if the
6
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
Examiner erred in identifying sensor electrodes 122 as the “receiver circuits”
in claim 1, the error would be harmless.
Next, Appellants argue that the Examiner erroneously interprets the
“activation regions” of Reynolds as the “electrodes of claim 1. Appeal Br.
11. According to Appellants, the term “electrodes” is well-defined in the
Specification. Id. at 11 (citing Spec. H 31, 40). Appellants argue that the
“electrodes” of claim 1 correspond to the sensor electrodes 122 of Reynolds,
rather than the activation regions 124. Id. at 11—12 (citing Reynolds 18,
19 (“A sensor electrode 122 comprises a conductive trace or deposition of
conductive material.”), 22). In the Reply Brief, Appellants also argue that
Activation regions 124 in Reynolds “are not electrodes themselves, but are
formed from an intersection of two sensor electrodes.” Reply Br. 1.
Because Reynolds discloses four sensor electrodes 122, which is the
same number as the sensor channels 115, Appellants argue that the first
number is not greater than the second number. Id. at 12—13.
The Examiner’s position, which we find persuasive, is that while
Reynolds refers to conductors 122 as “electrodes,” each activation region
124 also contains structures that function as “capacitive electrodes which
output a signal when an object is near or touching.” Answer 3. Similar to
the activation regions in Reynolds, Appellants’ Figure 1 depicts “electrodes”
12 at the intersections between horizontal conductors (unlabeled) and
vertical lines Xi—Xi6, which may correspond to transmitter electrodes (TX).
See Spec. 131; Fig. 1; c.f. Spec. 1139 (describing mutual capacitance
sensing in which “[e]ach sensor element uses at least two electrodes: one is
a transmitter (TX) electrode . . . and the other is a receiver (RX) electrode.”);
7
Appeal 2017-001205
Application 13/247,779
Figs. 5, 7 (depicting capacitive sensors as crossing TX and RX lines).
Appellants do not identify any substantial difference between the capacitive
sensors identified as “receive electrodes” 12 in Appellants’ Figure 1 and the
capacitive activation regions 124 of Reynolds.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the
Examiner’s finding that each of the activation regions 124 in Reynolds
comprises at least one “electrode,” as that term is used in claim 1 in light of
the Specification. Consequently, Reynolds discloses a greater number of
“electrodes” than “receiver circuits.” Because Appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error in any of the Examiner’s rejections, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
8