Ex Parte SHEPELEV et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2018

14581683 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/581,683 12/23/2014
98024 7590 08/14/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - Synaptics
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Petr SHEPELEV
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.
SYNA/140173US01 1221
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2018 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):
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETR SHEPELEV and ADAM SCHWARTZ
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to, "input sensing and, in particular, to
detecting an active pen using a capacitive sensing system." Specification,
paragraph 1.
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
Illustrative Claim
1. A processing system for an integrated display and capacitive sensing
device, comprising:
a sensor module including sensor circuitry configured to be
coupled to a plurality of sensor electrodes, the sensor module
configured to receive an active pen signal with at least one sensor
electrode of the plurality of sensor-electrodes; and
a determination module configured to adjust a blanking period
for the integrated display for alignment with a transmission period of
the active pen signal in response to receiving the active pen signal.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal (US Patent Application Publication
2016/0092010 Al; published March 31, 2016) and Rowe (US Patent
9,164,641 Bl; issued October 20, 2015). Final Rejection 2-13.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed December 14, 2016), the Reply Brief
(filed October 3, 2017), the Answer (mailed August 4, 2017) and the Final
Action (mailed July 19, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend, "[T]he combination of Agarwal and Rowe does
not teach or suggest 'a determination module configured to adjust a
blanking period for the integrated display for alignment with a transmission
period of the active pen signal in response to receiving the active pen
2
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
signal,' as recited in Appellant's claim 1 and similarly recited in Appellant's
claims 10 and 18." Appeal Brief 7.
Agarwal' s Figure 9 illustrating a timing diagram for synchronizing
sensing operations with display operations for an in-cell touch screen display
is reproduced below (annotated for clarity):
900~ 904 902 _.,,_,_......_ ___ -,..., ______ ---.-____________________ 0
: ~-.------,t"-H ......... ~
I . I
t '}"'0 I
I "'·@f
FIRST : ''""'j
SYNC.~
SIGNAL : 1 ; : : : : (: : : : :
I !I ! ! '
II II ! I
I !I ! ! '
II II ! I
t ! H I I ! !! It I I I !I ! ! ' II II ! I t ! HI I! I! It I I I !I ! ! ' II II ! t ! HI I! I! II I I
SECOND 1 ; : : : : ; : : : : :
SYNC : , 1
I !I ! ! ' II II ! 0 0 a I !I ! ' ' II II ! I !I ' ' ' II II !
SIGNAL I I! I I ' ! ! ' I I I I I ! I ! ' ' 11 I I ! I I
r-~~J!H 1 __ __.~"-'· ...... ~ .... ·_ ..... ~ .... ' ___ ..... ~.... · ~'-"'· c.,.,~u...· ..... ~ ....
1
___ .... ~..... ·~-"·~-"~ ... :---..... ~ ..... ·~ ......" ·.... ~ .....
1
..... ra-1-,
1
___ __.,...,
~ ......................................... £ ~
I I
000 m
I
I
THIRD :
SYNC e--------..---------,---------,---------
SIGNAL: I I I I
I i
' I
' j
0
E
FOURTH:
SYNC 'J SIGNAL: j I ~i I ______ I ~-------s~
START! , START2 1 START3 , V STARTO i
FORCE
SCAN
- ' : : . STOPO :
I 1• ir,
FORCE
1 OF 3
......... I - I - I 1 1 STOP1 ' 1 ' STOP" ' ' 1 STOP3 ' ! :• . • : : : • R' • : :• .. :
! I
: FORCE :
, 20F3 ,
FORCE
30R3
FORCE
1 OF3 ___ _._ ___ .....__.....__._ ___ _.___....___.._ ___ _,_ __________ _,__...._ _____,'---IG
Each of sub-frames 904, 906, 908, and 910 can include a
period of active refresh and vertical blanking. For example the
first sub-frame ('sub-frame O') 904 can have an active refresh
period 920 and a vertical blanking period 912. Likewise the
second, third and fourth sub-frames (sub-frames 1, 2 and 3)
906, 908 and 910 can have active refresh periods 922, 924 and
926, and vertical blanking periods 914, 916 and 918
respectively.
Agarwal, paragraph 56.
3
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
Agarwal discloses in paragraph 57:
The second synchronization signal can act as a signal to
synchronize the touch controller 812 with the display. Thus, for
example, during sub-frames 904, 906, 908 and 910, the touch
controller can perform no touch or stylus scanning during active
refresh portions of the display ( components of the in-cell touch
screen needed for scanning can be used for display purposes).
During the intra-sub-frame blanking 928, 930, 932 and 934, the
touch controller can perform stylus scans, for example. Likewise,
during the vertical blanking 912, 914, 916 and 918, the touch
controller can perform touch scans ( on some or all of the
electrodes of the display).
The Examiner finds Agarwal discloses:
[A] determination module (216 in Fig. 2, i-f 57) configured to
adjust a blanking sensing period for the integrated display (i-f 61
discloses number of blanking periods can vary depending on
display requirements) for alignment with a transmission period
of the active pen signal in response to receiving the active pen
signal (i-f57 discloses during the intra-sub-frame blanking 928,
912, 930, 914, 932, 916, 934 and 918 the touch controller can
perform stylus scans. This means, the number of blanking
periods 928, 930, 932 and 934 can vary to synchronize with the
active pen scan pulses).
Final Action 4.
Appellants contend:
Agarwal teaches that "[t]he second synchronization signal can
act as a signal to synchronize the touch controller 812 with the
display." Synchronizing the touch controller with the display
does not teach or suggest adjusting the blanking periods in
response to receiving an active pen signal. In general, the cited
portion of Agarwal teaches that the touch controller can perform
touch scans and active stylus scans during intra-sub-frame
blanking periods.
Appeal Brief 8.
4
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
Appellants further contend:
Agarwal explicitly teaches the opposite operation: once the
processor has determining the appropriate timing, the processor
can send the timing to the active pen so that the active pen
transmits at the correct times. (Agarwal, para. 0029). Agarwal
states: "[t]he touch controller 212 and/or host controller can, for
example, transmit scan plan information, timing information,
and/or frequency information to the wireless module to enable
the wireless module to transmit the information to an active
stylus." (Agarwal, para. 0029). Thus, the touch controller in
Agarwal instructs the active stylus with the timing information
rather than adjusting the timing ( e.g., blanking periods) to
accommodate the active stylus.
Appeal Brief 8.
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings and find Appellants'
arguments persuasive because Agarwal does not modify or adjust the
blanking periods with the transmission period of an active pen as required in
independent claims 1, 10 and 18. It is noted however, that Agarwal does
disclose in paragraph 29 that, "In some examples, the wireless module can
also receive information from peripheral devices, such as a stylus 208, which
can be transmitted to the touch controller 212 and/or host processor 216."
Nonetheless, the Examiner has provided no findings that indicate the
information transmitted by Agarwal' s peripheral devices modify or adjust
Agarwal's blanking periods.
The Examiner further finds:
Agarwal fails to disclose alignment with a transmission
period of the active pen signal in response to receiving the active
pen signal.
Rowe discloses the stylus drives a TX scan signal, the +4
sum is used when the display is not updating (e.g., during H-
blank or V-blank quiescent periods) and the O sum is used when
5
Appeal2018-000071
Application 14/581,683
touch scanning is being performed while the display is being
updated. Col. 22, lines 39-42 and Fig. 10.
Final Action 4.
Appellants argue that "Rowe is devoid of any disclosure of receiving
an active pen signal or any kind of active stylus." Appeal Brief 9. It is
noted that Rowe discloses in various places throughout the disclosure that
employing stylus for use with capacitive touch screens is well known in the
art. See Answer 4 (citing Rowe column 1, lines 34--35, column 3, lines 17-
25). Rowe also discloses multiphase transmission signals that may be used
when a display is not updating. See Rowe column 22, lines 17--4 7.
However, Rowe does not disclose modifying or adjusting a display's
blanking periods as required in independent claims 1, 10 and 18 and
therefore Rowe fails to address Agarwal' s noted deficiency above.
Consequently, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive because Rowe
does not address Agarwal's deficiency and we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1-24.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
6