IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Control No.: To be assigned
`
`Group Art Unit: To be assigned
`
`Examiner: To be assigned
`
`Confirmation No.: To be assigned
`
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`In re Ex Parte Reexamination of:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`Issue Date: July 10, 2012
`
`Inventor: Ching-Yang Chang et al.
`
`Application No. 11/842,747
`
`Filing Date: August 21, 2007
`
`For: CONDUCTOR PATTERN
`STRUCTURE OF CAPACITIVE
`TOUCH PANEL
`
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,217,902
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 59
`
`(cid:58)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:78) (cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`Requirements for Ex Parte Reexaminations Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 .............................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(a) ......................................................... 1
`
`Statement Pointing Out Each Substantial New Question of Patentability
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(1) ................................................................................ 1
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination Is Requested and
`a Detailed Explanation of the Pertinence and Manner of Applying the
`Prior Art Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(2) ................................................................ 1
`
`Copies of Prior Art Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3) ................................................ 1
`
`Copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4) ....................... 1
`
`Certificate of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(5) ............................................ 2
`
`Related Copending Litigation and Reexamination ................................................. 2
`
`Citation of Prior Art Presented ............................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`Certification That the Statutory Estoppel Provision of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) Does
`Not Prohibit Requester from Filing This Request Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6) ............ 3
`
`IV.
`
`Background on the ’902 patent ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’902 patent ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Prosecution History of the ’902 Patent and Reasons for Allowance ...................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed transparent
`conductive material limitations ................................................................... 7
`
`Applicant’s arguments regarding other aspects of the claims at
`issue........................................................................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`Statement Pointing Out Each Substantial New Question of Patentability ........................ 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art Reference: Fujitsu ................................................................................. 13
`
`Prior Art Reference: Binstead .............................................................................. 17
`
`Prior Art Reference: Bolender ............................................................................. 19
`
`Prior Art Reference: Lambert .............................................................................. 22
`
`Page 2 of 59
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Prior Art Reference: Honeywell .......................................................................... 26
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`Prior Art Reference: Miller .................................................................................. 29
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`VI.
`
`Detailed Explanation Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(2) ....................................................... 31
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Fujitsu Anticipates Claims 1-15, 17-22, 24-29, 32, 34-40, 42-44, 46-58,
`and 60-68 (SNQ No. 1) ......................................................................................... 31
`
`Claims 11-15, 17-22, 34, 43, 51, 60, and 67 Are Obvious over Fujitsu in
`View of Binstead (SNQ No. 2) ............................................................................. 32
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 32
`
`Claims 16-23, 25-31, 35, 41, 44, 45, and 68 Are Obvious over Fujitsu in
`View of Honeywell (SNQ No. 3) ......................................................................... 33
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 33
`
`Claims 33 and 59 Are Obvious over Fujitsu in View of Bolender (SNQ
`No. 4) .................................................................................................................... 35
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 35
`
`Claims 17-22, 25-29, 35, 44, and 68 Are Obvious over Fujitsu in View of
`Miller (SNQ No. 5) ............................................................................................... 36
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 36
`
`Binstead Anticipates Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24-27, 29,
`32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55, 57, 58, 60-62, and 64-68 (SNQ No.
`6) ........................................................................................................................... 38
`
`Claims 4, 9, 14, 16-23, 25-30, 35, 38, 41, 44, 45, 49, 56, 63, and 68 Are
`Obvious over Binstead in View of Honeywell (SNQ No. 7) ................................ 38
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 39
`
`Claims 33 and 59 Are Obvious over Binstead in View of Bolender (SNQ
`No. 8) .................................................................................................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 40
`
`Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 35, 44, and 68 Are Obvious over
`Binstead in View of Miller (SNQ No. 9) .............................................................. 41
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 41
`
`Page 3 of 59
`
`iii
`
`

`

`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`Lambert Anticipates Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22, 24-28, 32, 34-38,
`40, 42-44, 46-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and 65-68 (SNQ No. 10) .............................. 43
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`Claims 5, 10, 15, 21, 29, 39, 50, 57, and 64 Are Obvious over Lambert in
`View of Binstead (SNQ No. 11) ........................................................................... 43
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 44
`
`Claims 16-20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30, 31, 35, 41, 44, 45, and 68 Are Obvious
`over Lambert in View of Honeywell (SNQ No. 12) ............................................. 45
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 45
`
`M.
`
`Claims 33 and 59 Are Obvious over Lambert in View of Bolender (SNQ
`No. 13) .................................................................................................................. 46
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 46
`
`Claims 17-20, 22, 25-28, 35, 44, and 68 Are Obvious over Lambert in
`View of Miller (SNQ No. 14) ............................................................................... 48
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 48
`
`Honeywell Anticipates Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-28, 30-32, 34-
`38, 40-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and 65-68 (SNQ No. 15) ......................................... 49
`
`Claims 5, 10-24, 29, 34, 39, 43, 40, 50-52, 57, 60, 64, 65, and 67 Are
`Obvious over Honeywell in View of Binstead (SNQ No. 16) .............................. 50
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 50
`
`Claims 33 and 59 Are Obvious over Honeywell in View of Bolender
`(SNQ No. 17) ........................................................................................................ 51
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 51
`
`Claims 17-20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30, 35, 44, and 68 Are Obvious over
`Honeywell in View of Miller (SNQ No. 18) ........................................................ 53
`
`1.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................................. 53
`
`VII.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 54
`
`Page 4 of 59
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 (“the ’902 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’902 Patent
`
`Certificate of Translation by Tadashige Itoh regarding JP 61-84729 to
`Honeywell (“Honeywell”)
`
`Certificate of Translation by Tadashige Itoh regarding JP 60-75927 to
`Fujitsu (“Fujitsu”)
`
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 60-75927 (“Fujitsu”) and
`corresponding English translation of the JP 75927 application (including
`Abstract)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Ronald Binstead (“Binstead”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0030048 to Robert Bolender et
`al. (“Bolender”)
`
`Published UK Patent Application GB 2 168 816 A to Andrew Lambert
`(“Lambert”)
`
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 61-84729 (“Honeywell”) and
`corresponding English translation of the JP 84729 application (including
`Abstract)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Robert Miller et al. (“Miller”)
`
`Claim Chart based on Fujitsu with additional references to Binstead,
`Honeywell, Bolender, and Miller
`
`Claim Chart based on Binstead with additional references to Honeywell,
`Bolender, and Miller
`
`Claim Chart based on Lambert with additional references to Binstead,
`Honeywell, Bolender, and Miller
`
`Claim Chart based on Honeywell with additional references to Binstead,
`Bolender, and Miller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1:
`
`Exhibit 2:
`
`Exhibit 3:
`
`
`Exhibit 4:
`
`
`Exhibit PA1:
`
`
`Exhibit PA2:
`
`Exhibit PA3:
`
`
`Exhibit PA4:
`
`
`Exhibit PA5:
`
`
`Exhibit PA6:
`
`Exhibit CC1:
`
`
`Exhibit CC2:
`
`
`Exhibit CC3:
`
`
`Exhibit CC4:
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 59
`
`v
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The undersigned third-party Requester (“Requester”) requests an ex parte reexamination
`
`of claims 1-68 of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 (“the ’902 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1).1
`
`II.
`
`Requirements for Ex Parte Reexaminations Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510
`A.
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(a)
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(a), the fee for reexamination of $12,000.00 is
`
`attached. The undersigned also authorizes the Office to charge deposit account 06-0916 for any
`
`other necessary fees associated with this Request.
`
`B.
`
`Statement Pointing Out Each Substantial New Question of Patentability
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(1)
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(1), Section V, infra, provides a statement
`
`pointing out each substantial new question of patentability.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination Is Requested and a
`Detailed Explanation of the Pertinence and Manner of Applying the Prior
`Art Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(2)
`Requester requests reexamination of claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent. Also, in accordance
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 510(b)(2), Section VI, infra, provides details regarding the pertinence and
`
`manner of applying the patents and printed publications to claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent.
`
`D.
`Copies of Prior Art Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3)
`As indicated above, copies of the patents and printed publications relied on in this
`
`Request are attached as Exhibit Nos. PA1-PA6.
`
`E.
`Copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4)
`A single-sided copy of the entire ’902 patent, including the front face, drawings, and
`
`specification/claims (in double-column format) is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`
`1 Claims 1-68 are also referred to collectively as “the claims at issue.”
`
`Page 6 of 59
`
`Page 1 of 54
`
`
`

`

`F.
`Certificate of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(5)
`As also indicated on the attached Certificate of Service, Requester certifies that a copy of
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`this Request has been served in its entirety on the Patent Owner at the following correspondence
`
`addresses, as provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.33(c):
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`IP Prosecution Department
`2050 Main Street, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`c/o any one of the following attorneys/agents: 2
`
`Dylan Adams (56289)
`Bradford Been (30823)
`Christopher Broderick (41639)
`James Brooks (29898)
`Joseph Calvaruso (28287)
`Gino Cheng (62819)
`Joseph Chern (63246)
`Brenda Conner (55082)
`Donald Daybell (50877)
`David Wang (38358)
`
`G.
`Related Copending Litigation and Reexamination
`To the Requester’s knowledge, the ’902 patent has not been subject to any litigation,
`
`James Maune (67187)
`Michael Heafy (38178)
`Christopher Higgins (66422) Kurt Mulville (37194)
`Elizabeth Howard (40356)
`Dat Nguyen (63183)
`John Inge (26916)
`Andrew Ong (69076)
`Robert Isackson (31110)
`Mark Shean (54441)
`Johanna Jacob (64298)
`Joseph Sherinsky (65055)
`Travis Jenson (60087)
`Davin Stockwell (41334)
`Benjamin Lin (58858)
`William Tabler III (53668)
`Richard Martinelli (52003)
`Anthony Tartaglio (69166)
`Lisa Ward (41421)
`William Wright III (36312)
`
`previous reexamination, post grant review, or inter partes review.
`
`H.
`Citation of Prior Art Presented
`As also shown on the attached PTO Form SB/08, the following patents and printed
`
`publication forms the basis of this Request for reexamination:
`
`Exhibit PA1
`
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 60-75927
`(“Fujitsu”) and corresponding English translation of the JP
`75927 application (including Abstract)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 to Ronald Binstead (“Binstead”)
`Exhibit PA2
`
`2 The U.S. Patent Office’s PAIR site for the ’902 patent identifies the following list of
`attorneys/agents from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP as the attorney/agent of record.
`
`Page 7 of 59
`
`Page 2 of 54
`
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`Exhibit PA3
`
`Exhibit PA4
`
`Exhibit PA5
`
`Exhibit PA6
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0030048 to Robert
`Bolender et al. (“Bolender”)
`Published UK Patent Application GB 2 168 816 A to Andrew
`Lambert (“Lambert”)
`Japanese Published Patent Application No. 61-84729
`(“Honeywell”) and corresponding English translation of the
`JP 84729 application (including Abstract)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787 to Robert Miller et al. (“Miller”)
`
`III. Certification That the Statutory Estoppel Provision of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) Does
`Not Prohibit Requester from Filing This Request Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6)
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6), Requester certifies that the statutory estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) do not prohibit Requester from
`
`filing this ex parte reexamination request.
`
`IV.
`
`Background on the ’902 patent
`A.
`The ’902 patent
`The ’902 patent is directed to a “conductor pattern structure of a capacitive touch panel,”
`
`and a method of constructing such touch panel. (Ex. 1, Abstract; see also 3:12-19, 6:17-33.)
`
`The ’902 patent purports to “[simplify] the structure and [reduce] the thickness of the structure”
`
`of a capacitive touch panel. (Id. at 3:53-54.)
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’902 patent discloses a conductor pattern structure.
`
`Page 8 of 59
`
`Page 3 of 54
`
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`The structure includes a plurality of first-axis (X axis) conductor assemblies 13. (See e.g., id,
`
`Fig. 1.) Each first-axis conductor assembly 13 includes a plurality of first-axis conductor cells
`
`131 and a plurality of first-axis conduction lines 132 respectively connecting between adjacent
`
`ones of the first-axis conductor cells 131. (See id.) The structure further includes a plurality of
`
`insulation layers 17, made of transparent insulation material such as silicon oxide, covering
`
`respective first-axis conduction lines 132. (See id. at 5:14-17, Fig. 2.) The insulation layers 17
`
`do not cover the first-axis conductor cells 131. (See id., Fig. 8.)
`
`Page 9 of 59
`
`Page 4 of 54
`
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`The structure further includes a plurality of second-axis (Y axis) conductor assemblies 14. (See
`
`id., Figs. 1 and 2.) Each second-axis conductor assembly 14 includes a plurality of second-axis
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 59
`
`Page 5 of 54
`
`
`

`

`conductor cells 141 and a plurality of second-axis conduction lines 142 respectively connecting
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`between adjacent ones of the second-axis conductor cells 141. (See id. at 5:17-29.) Each of the
`
`second-axis conduction lines 142 “extends over and across a surface of each insulation layer 17.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`According to the ’902 patent, “the first-axis conductor assemblies 13 and the second-axis
`
`conductor assemblies 14, and the first-axis and second-axis conduction lines 132, 142 are made
`
`of transparent conductive film, such as ITO conductive film.” (Id. at 5:48-52.)
`
`Further, the ’902 patent describes a method to manufacture a conductor pattern structure
`
`of a capacitive touch panel. (See id. at 6:20-67, Figs. 7-9.) Specifically, the ’902 patent
`
`discloses:
`
`FIG. 7 illustrates the schematic view of a surface of a substrate on
`which a plurality of first-axis conductor cells 131, first-axis
`conduction lines 132, signal transmission lines 16a, 16b, and
`second-axis conductor cells 141 are just formed, and FIG. 8
`illustrates the schematic view of the substrate surface on which an
`insulation covering layer 17 is formed to cover the surface of each
`first-axis conduction line 132, after the step of FIG. 7. Further,
`FIG. 9 illustrates a schematic view of the substrate surface on
`which a second-axis conduction line 142 is formed to connect
`between each pair of adjacent second-axis conductor cells 141 of
`the same second-axis conductor assembly, after the step of FIG. 8,
`to thereby complete the manufacturing of the conductor pattern
`structure of the touch panel.
`(Id. at 6:20-33.)
`
`With respect to sensing a touch on the capacitive touch panel, the ’902 patent discloses
`
`that when a user’s finger touches the touch panel, “the first-axis conductor cell 131 of the first-
`
`axis conductor assembly 13 and the second-axis conductor cell 141 of the second-axis conductor
`
`assembly 14 . . . induce a capacitor effect therebetween and a signal caused thereby is
`
`Page 11 of 59
`
`Page 6 of 54
`
`
`

`

`transmitted through the signal transmission lines 16a, 16b to the control circuit” to calculate the
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`position of touch. (Id. at 5:64-6:5.)
`
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’902 Patent and Reasons for Allowance
`The ’902 patent issued from U.S. application no. 11/842,747 (“the ’747 application”).
`
`During the prosecution of the ’747 application, the applicant amended the claims to distinguish
`
`them over the prior art cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) based on
`
`several positions, including that the conductor cells consist of a transparent conductive material.
`
`The Office eventually allowed the claims at issue in this reexamination request because the cited
`
`prior art did not disclose the transparent conductive material limitations of the claims. However,
`
`as demonstrated in this Request, that claimed feature was neither novel nor nonobvious in
`
`conductor pattern structures of capacitive touch panels disclosed in the prior art. Below is a
`
`summary of the positions regarding those claimed features by the applicant and the Office.
`
`1.
`
`Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed transparent conductive
`material limitations
`To rebut the Office’s positions that certain prior art (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 6, 188,391 to
`
`Seely) discloses the limitations of the then-pending claims of the ’747 application, the applicant
`
`amended the claims to require that the “first-axis conductor cells and the second-axis conductor
`
`cells consist of a transparent conductive material.” (Ex. 2, 9/20/10 Amendment and Response at
`
`11.) The applicant did not dispute that Seely taught other aspects of the pending claims.3
`
`The applicant repeatedly maintained the position that the alleged novel aspects of its
`
`claims involved the transparent conductive material limitations added to the claims. For
`
`
`3 In a later amendment, the applicant presented amendments and arguments relating to the
`newly claimed “insulation layers” that cover a surface of each first axis conduction line “without
`encompassing the adjacent first-axis conductor cells.” (See e.g., Ex. 2, 10/12/10 Supplemental
`Amendment, at 2, 10-12.)
`
`Page 12 of 59
`
`Page 7 of 54
`
`
`

`

`instance, the applicant presented limiting arguments that newly cited prior art (Bolender) did not
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`anticipate the pending claims because the reference discloses capacitive sensors consisting of
`
`transparent conductive material overlaid by capacitive sensors consisting of opaque conductive
`
`material.
`
`[T]he structure in Bolender corresponding to a conductor cell is
`made of a multi-layer [sic] conductive structure having [1] a
`transparent or substantially
`transparent
`layer
`that extends
`underneath and [2] an opaque or a substantially opaque layer,
`the latter being printed over at least part of the transparent or
`substantially transparent layer. Nowhere does Bolender disclose
`conductor cells that “consist of a transparent conductive
`material,” as called for in each of Applicant’s independent claims.
`(See, e.g., Ex. 2, 2/22/2011 Amendment and Response After Final at 21-23.) (original emphasis)
`
`Despite admitting that Bolender discloses structures corresponding to the claimed
`
`conductor cells and that those structures consist of transparent conductive material, the
`
`applicants nonetheless argued that Bolender cannot anticipate the claims because Bolender’s
`
`transparent conductor cells are partially overlaid by opaque conductor cells. (See, e.g., Bolender,
`
`Fig. 6 (reproduced below).)
`
`
`The applicant again touted the alleged novelty of its claims through more arguments and
`
`an expert declaration to highlight that “Bolender discloses that every capacitive ‘cell’ includes at
`
`Page 13 of 59
`
`Page 8 of 54
`
`
`

`

`least some opaque material overlying it.” (Ex. 2, 7/26/2011 Supplemental Amendment and
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`Response at 21-24; 7/26/11 Gerpheide Declaration.)
`
`The applicant held a telephonic interview with the examiner during which “Applicant’s
`
`representative discussed proposed amendments to overcome the prior art of record.” (Ex. 2,
`
`10/27/2011 Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary.) Following the interview, the examiner
`
`allowed the ’747 application—even though the applicants did not further amend the claims as
`
`discussed during the interview.
`
`Notably, in the reasons for allowance, the examiner indicated that Bolender discloses:
`
`US PG Publication No. 2005/0030048 to Bolender et al. discloses
`a conductor pattern structure of a capacitive touch panel, formed
`on a surface of a substrate (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 2, par. 28), the
`conductor pattern structure comprising: a plurality of first-axis
`conductor assemblies, each
`first-axis conductor assembly
`comprising a plurality of first-axis conductor cells arranged on the
`surface of the substrate along a first axis in a substantially equally-
`spaced manner (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36), a disposition
`zone being delimited between adjacent ones of the first-axis
`conductor assemblies and between adjacent ones of the first-axis
`conductor cells (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36),a plurality of
`first-axis conduction
`lines respectively connecting between
`adjacent ones of the first-axis conductor cells of each first-axis
`conductor assembly so that the first-axis conductor cells of each
`respective first-axis conductor assembly are electrically connected
`together (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36); a plurality of
`insulation layers, each insulation layer of the plurality of insulation
`layers covering a surface of each first-axis conduction line without
`encompassing the adjacent first-axis conductor cells (Bolender,
`Figs. 3B, 12; pg. 3, par. 36; pg. 7, par. 70); a plurality of second-
`axis conductor assemblies, each second-axis conductor assembly
`comprising a plurality of second-axis conductor cells arranged on
`the surface of the substrate along a second axis in a substantially
`equally-spaced manner (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36), each
`second-axis conductor cell being set in each disposition zone
`(Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36); a plurality of second-axis
`conduction lines respectively connecting between adjacent ones of
`the second-axis conductor cells of each second-axis conductor
`assembly so that the second-axis conductor cells of each respective
`second-axis conductor assembly are electrically connected together
`
`Page 14 of 59
`
`Page 9 of 54
`
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`(Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36); the second-axis conduction
`line being extended across a surface of the insulation layer of the
`respective first-axis conduction line (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par.
`35-36); wherein the conductor pattern structure further comprises a
`plurality of signal transmission lines formed on the surface of the
`substrate, each signal transmission line respectively connecting
`each first-axis conductor assembly and each second-axis conductor
`assembly (Bolender, Fig. 3B; pg. 3, par. 35-36); wherein a
`capacitance between a first cell of the plurality of first-axis cells
`and a second cell of the plurality of second-axis cells is measured
`to detect a position of touch (Bolender, pg. 2, par. 29); wherein
`each second-axis conduction line terminates on the edge of each
`second-axis conductor cell to the adjacent second-axis conductor
`cells (Bolender, Fig. 3B); wherein each second-axis conduction
`line terminates on the edge of each second-axis conductor cell to
`the adjacent second-axis conductor cells (Bolender, Fig. 3B);
`wherein the first-axis conductor cells, the second-axis conductor
`cells and the first-axis conduction lines are formed simultaneously
`(Bolender, pg. 2, par. 23, 28).
`(Ex. 2, 4/11/2012 Notice of Allowance at 3-4.)4 The examiner noted that “[a]s to independent
`
`claims 1, 6, 17, 25, 32, 35, 42, 44, 46, 53, 58 and 66, the prior art of reference fails to teach or
`
`suggest wherein first-axis conductor cells and the second-axis conductor cells consist of a
`
`transparent conductive material.” (Id., at 4.) (original emphasis)
`
`2.
`Applicant’s arguments regarding other aspects of the claims at issue
`The applicant presented other arguments relating to additional features of the claims at
`
`issue to allegedly distinguish the cited prior art during prosecution of the ’747 application. For
`
`example, the applicant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose: the claim feature that “a
`
`capacitance between a first cell of the plurality of first-axis cells and a second cell of the plurality
`
`of second-axis cells is measured to detect a position of touch” (Ex. 2, 7/26/11 Supplemental
`
`Amendment and Response After Final, at 25-26); a “rigid substrate” (id. at 28-30); and a
`
`
`4 The examiner also acknowledged
`that U.S. Patent Application Publication
`2004/0119701 to Mulligan discloses first and second-axis conductor cells have a contour of
`hexagonal shape. (Id. at 4, citing to Mulligan, ¶ 38.)
`
`Page 15 of 59
`
`Page 10 of 54
`
`
`

`

`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`“plurality of signal transmission lines formed on the surface of the substrate” (id. at 24-25), but
`
`did acknowledge that “there are many different designs and structures available for connecting
`
`capacitive sensor traces and patterns in a touch pad design depending on the system requirements
`
`and specific applications that the designs and structures are intended for” (id at 24).
`
`These positions did not persuade the examiner since, as noted above, the examiner found
`
`Bolender to teach all of the limitations of the claims except for the “transparent conductive
`
`material” limitations.
`
`V.
`
`Statement Pointing Out Each Substantial New Question of Patentability
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(1), the following statements point out each
`
`substantial new question of patentability, based on the above-listed prior art printed publication,
`
`that is raised in this Request:
`
`Fujitsu as Primary Reference
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-15, 17-22, 24-29, 32, 34-40,
`42-44, 46-58, and 60-68 is raised by Fujitsu.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 11-15, 17-22, 34, 43, 51, 60, and
`67 is raised by Fujitsu in view of Binstead.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 16-23, 25-31, 35, 41, 44, 45, and
`68 is raised by Fujitsu in view of Honeywell.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 33 and 59 is raised by Fujitsu in
`view of Bolender.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 17-22, 25-29, 35, 44, and 68 is
`raised by Fujitsu in view of Miller.
`
`Binstead as Primary Reference
`
`6.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 22,
`24-27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 50-55, 57, 58, 60-62, and 64-68 is raised by
`Binstead.
`
`
`Page 16 of 59
`
`Page 11 of 54
`
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 4, 9, 14, 16-23, 25-31, 35, 38, 41,
`44, 45, 49, 56, 63, and 68 is raised by Binstead in view of Honeywell.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 33 and 59 are raised by Binstead
`in view of Bolender.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 17-19, 21, 25-27, 29, 35, 44, and
`68 is raised by Binstead in view of Miller.
`
`Lambert as Primary Reference
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22, 24-28,
`32, 34-38, 40, 42-44, 46-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and 65-68 is raised by Lambert.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 5, 10, 15, 21, 29, 39, 50, 57, and
`64 is raised by Lambert in view of Binstead.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 16-20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30, 31, 35,
`41, 44, 45, and 68 is raised by Lambert in view of Honeywell.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 33 and 59 is raised by Lambert in
`view of Bolender.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 17-20, 22, 25-28, 35, 44, and 68
`is raised by Lambert in view of Miller.
`
`Honeywell as Primary Reference
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-28, 30-
`32, 34-38, 40-49, 51-56, 58, 60-63, and 65-68 is raised by Honeywell.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 5, 10-24, 29, 34, 39, 40, 43, 50-
`52, 57, 60, 64, 65, and 67 is raised by Honeywell in view of Binstead.
`
`A substantial new question of patentability as to claims 33 and 59 is raised by Honeywell
`in view of Bolender.
`
`A substant