Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: March 25, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, RICHARD E. RICE, and ADAM V. FLOYD,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: March 25, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, RICHARD E. RICE, and ADAM V. FLOYD,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Wintek Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-68 of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902. Pet. (Paper 2).
`
`We instituted trial on all challenged claims with the exception of claims 23
`
`and 30. D.I. (Paper 10). Petitioner timely requests rehearing of the Board’s
`
`decision not to institute on proposed ground 4 (i.e., asserted obviousness
`
`based on Fujitsu and Seguine) with respect to claims 17-23, 25-30, 35, 44,
`
`and 68. Req. (Paper 12); see D.I. at 24-25 (challenged portion of the D.I.).
`
`The request for rehearing is denied.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of showing the decision should be
`
`modified and must specifically identify all matters that the party believes the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When
`
`rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an
`
`abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be
`
`determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a
`
`factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision
`
`represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star
`
`Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`In the present case, Petitioner contends that the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments with respect to
`
`Seguine. Req. 1. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Board
`
`overlooked Petitioner’s arguments allegedly demonstrating that Seguine
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`discloses measuring capacitance between two conductor cells to detect a
`
`position of touch. Id. at 2-5.
`
`Petitioner relies on new arguments regarding Sequine’s disclosure that
`
`are not set forth in the Petition. In its Petition, Petitioner argued that
`
`Seguine discloses measuring the capacitance between two sensors, CP, along
`
`with the change in capacitance caused by a conductive object (e.g., a finger),
`
`CF. In particular, Petitioner argued:
`
`Seguine discloses measuring a capacitance variation CF, over a
`base capacitance CP, where CP is the capacitance between two
`sensor elements, and CF is the change in the base capacitance
`CP caused when a conductive object (e.g., a finger) touches one
`or both sensor elements to detect a position of touch. See e.g.,
`Ex. 1012, ¶¶ [0026]-[0029], [0032], [0040], Figs. 3A, 4A, 5A,
`5B; Ex. 1013, ¶ 101. Seguine further discloses measuring the
`capacitance between “x-axis sensor elements 501”, a
`conductive object, and “y-axis sensor elements 503” both 501
`and 503 having a hexagonal shape. See e.g., Ex 1012, ¶ [0032],
`Figs. 5A, 5B; Ex. 1013, ¶ 101.
`
`Pet. 32 (footnote omitted). That single paragraph is all that Petitioner argued
`
`in the Petition with respect to Seguine’s disclosure. Pet. 31-33. As we
`
`understand Petitioner’s original assertion, Seguine measures CF relative to a
`
`base capacitance Cp. Or as stated in Seguine:
`
`When a conductive object (e.g., a finger) is placed in proximity
`to the two plates 301 and 302, there is a vertical capacitance
`between one electrode 301 and the conductive object 303 and a
`similar vertical capacitance between the conductive object 303
`and the other electrode 302. The vertical capacitance between
`electrode 301 and the conductive object 303 and the vertical
`capacitance between electrode 302 and the conductive object
`303 add in series to yield a capacitance CF. That capacitance
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`adds in parallel to the base capacitance Cp between the plates
`301 and 302, resulting in a change of capacitance CF over the
`base capacitance.
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 026. Petitioner argued in the Petition that in Seguine the position
`
`of the conductive object (e.g., finger) is measured based upon the total
`
`change in capacitance CF. Petitioner did not argue that Seguine separately
`
`measures CP, the capacitance between the plates (i.e., between a first cell and
`
`second cell, as required by claims 17 and 25), to detect the position of the
`
`conductive object (e.g., finger).
`
`In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner now relies on a paragraph of
`
`Sequine not cited in the Petition (¶ 0033) and argues that Sequine discloses
`
`an alternative embodiment which instead of using a capacitive switch
`
`relaxation oscillator (“CSR”), makes use of charge transfer. Req. 3 (citing
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 0033). Petitioner newly argues that the charge transfer
`
`embodiment measures CP, and in doing so, teaches the pertinent capacitance
`
`measuring features of the claims. Id. A request for rehearing, however, is
`
`not an opportunity to raise new arguments and/or new evidence. Petitioner’s
`
`argument in the Petition (reproduced in full above) does not discuss, or rely
`
`upon, an alternative embodiment involving charge transfer, nor does it cite
`
`to paragraph 0033 of Seguine as previously mentioned.
`
`Petitioner notes that it cited to paragraph 101 of Mr. Subramanian’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1013), which references paragraph 0033 of Seguine.
`
`Req. 3. However, paragraph 101 of Mr. Subramanian’s declaration merely
`
`contains a conclusory statement that Seguine discloses measuring
`
`capacitance between two electrodes to detect a position of a touch, and
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`quotes paragraphs 26, 27, and 33 of Seguine without any explanation of how
`
`the disclosure quoted supports his conclusion. In any event, nowhere in the
`
`Petition is there a mention of a charge transfer embodiment, much less any
`
`showing of how that embodiment discloses measuring capacitance between
`
`conductor cells to detect a position of touch.
`
`Petitioner also contends that in measuring Cp+Cf, Seguine is
`
`measuring Cp, the capacitance between the conductor cells. Req. 4. We are
`
`not persuaded, however, that we misapprehended or overlooked this
`
`contention. As stated in our Decision (pages 24-25), that contention does
`
`not persuade us that Seguine discloses measuring “a capacitance between a
`
`first cell . . . and a second cell . . . to detect a position of touch.” Rather, the
`
`cited portions of Seguine disclose measuring the capacitance between x-axis
`
`sensor elements 501, a conductive object, and y-axis sensor elements 503, as
`
`Petitioner itself argued in the Petition. See Pet. 32.
`
`Accordingly, we have considered Petitioner’s request for rehearing,
`
`but are not persuaded that is demonstrates that the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked any matter in declining to institute inter partes review based on
`
`the ground of patentability involving Fujitsu and Seguine as applied to
`
`claims 17-23, 25-30, 35, 44, and 68.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`David Bilsker
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
