ete
`
`
`=FCYPRESS
`
`PERFOR A
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`Internal Correspondence
`
`Date: 3/2/2010
`Ta:
`Jeff Dahlin (JVY)
`Author: Michael Hills (HFM)
`Author File#: HFM#061
`TMA200 Water Rejection Baselining Using SelfCap
`(draft)
`
`Ww: 1009
`
`Subject:
`
`Category:
`Distribution: EBX, TATE, ELG, IVY
`
`
`
`Summary:
`Waiter rejection was implemented for the Lenovo Rocket and LG Miniproject on
`TMA300 by adding a self-cap scan to help manage baseline updating.
`Maintaining a good baseline is the first problem with water on a panel using a
`mutual cap scan. Depending on the panel and finger thresholds, this alone can
`in some cases provide water rejection and/or wetfinger tracking, but other panel
`designs can have very poor wet finger tracking and in some cases even false
`touches from water on the panel even if the baseline algorithm is robust. The
`primary goal of the methods discussed in this meme js to provide a robust
`baseline so that when thewater is removed from the panel it wil resume normal
`operation without having to reset the PSoC.
`
`Problem Background:
`There are a coupledistinct problems with water on a panel that is scanned with
`mutual cap.
`
`Thefirst problem is that water creates a negative signal on a mutual cap scan.
`See Figure (Need to add figure}. That makesit difficult to create a robust
`baseline update algorithm.
`If the panelis initialized with wateror a finger on the
`panel, there must be the possibility fo reset all the baselines oncethis is
`removed or moved. The baseline must be able to update overtime to
`accommodate shifts from temperature, but if water accumulates or goes away
`slowly due to condensation or evaporation, the baselines should not be updated.
`Using mutual cap scan it is practically impossible to distinguish between the
`situation where a PSoC is started with a finger on the panel and it Is then
`removed, or itis started without a finger and a water drop falls on the panel. The
`waterproof method in VICK#331 and implemented in PSoC Designer 5.0 SP 6.4
`uses the assumption that the negative signal from wateris less than the positive
`signal from a finger to distinguish the twoevents. That assumption seemsto be
`
`Page i of 5
`
`

`

`true on the DVK, but does coversituations of a small finger af startup. That
`assuniption was not true on the Lenove Rocket single solid diamond panelor the
`LG Mini panel. On both of these, the negative signal from water could be fess
`than, equal to, or even larger thanthe largest signal from a finger.
`
`Even with the baseline algorithm solidified, the level of water rejection /
`waterproof performance can vary significantly based on the design of the panel.
`For example, a large drop of water on the panel can create a positive mutual cap
`signal if the edge of the drop Is positioned correctly in relation to the sensor. The
`magnitude or the positive signal depends on the panel design. Figure {Need to
`add figure} will show theprofile of a water drop with positive signals near the
`edge. A filter that ignores any positive signal next to a negative signal can
`prevent this kind of false touch, but that can also cause a finger to be rejected in
`certain cases with poor grounding of the phone(signal disparity with phone
`sitting on @ box).
`in addition, finger tracking with water on the screen is also
`quite variable. On the Single Solid Diamond (SSD) Lenovo panel, finger tracking
`through a large puddle worked relatively well with just the baseline improvement,
`but for the LG mini panel, and the updated Dual Solid Diamond (DSD) panelfor
`Lenovo,it did not work weil at all. On the Lenovo SSD panel, a puddie around a
`finger caused the signal to spread significantly, but the peak signal wasstill
`located under the finger, and there was usually not a large increasein the signal
`around the edge of the puddle. This allowed reasonably good finger tracking
`with the existing centroid algorithm. This was not tested with poor grounding
`(5D), and itis likely that this case would have had poorfingertracking with a
`puddle on the screen. On the Lenovo DSD panel and the LG panel, even with
`good grounding, the signal under the finger was often not the strongest. The
`strongest signals would be around the edge of the puddle. Finger tracking in this
`situation would require modifications to the centroid aigorithm similar to the large
`finger tracking solutions discussed in VICK#335 and VICK#359,or cornbining
`the mutual cap scan datawith the self-cap scan data to find the finger positions.
`
`This memo anly addresses the Baseline problem.
`
`' General Method Description:
`
`The following two sections discuss the algorithms from a conceptual standpoint.
`Details of implementing the self-cap scan are discussedin a later section {notin
`this draft}. For the baseline improvement, two somewhatdistinct methods were
`used for Lenovo Rocket and for LG Mini. There were advantages and
`disadvantages for both methods. Hopefully an even better method, possibly a
`hybrid of the two, can be developed.
`
`General Method Used for Lenovo:
`
`For Lenovo, a self-cap scan was performed immediately after each mutual cap
`scan. A baseline for each self-cap sensor is maintained. For the original single
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`solid diamond Lenove Panel the scan was performed with an inverted shield. A
`normal shield will ideally cause waterto have no effect on the self-cap reading.
`Without a shield, wateris detected, but not as strongly as a finger. With an
`inverted shield, the signals from water on the panel are similar in strength to a
`finger. See Figure {Need fo add figure}. The data from the water scan was used
`in two ways.
`
`First, if self-cap detects a signal (this could indicate either water or a finger on
`the panel), baseline updating is stopped. The existing mutual cap baseline
`algorithm is modified so that a signal below the negative noise threshold locks
`the baseline instead of resetting the baseline. These two changes prevent
`moisture or water drops from causing the mutual cap baseline to decrease,
`resulting in a false touch when the water is removed. See Figure {Need to add
`figure}.
`
`Second, if the self-cap signal falls below the self-cap baseline by more than
`NoiseThreshold, all of the baselines are reset.
`If the PSoC is powered on when
`there is a finger or water drop on the panel, this allows the baseline to be reset
`to a lower or higher value when the finger or water is removed. Note that there
`is additional logic so that the reset isn’t performed until there are no otherfingers
`detected on the screen by the self-cap scan to ensure that the panelis reset fo a
`good value. This does have a shoricaming in that if the panel is powered on
`with several water droplets, then some of them are wiped off, there could be
`faise touches there had previously been water drops until all of the drops have
`been removed.
`
`This method is very good when working properly, because it keeps the baseline
`near the correct value all of the time.
`{ft could be improved slightly in terms of
`how the baseline reset is done. As described here, if a finger is on the screen at
`power on, the finger will be tracked as if moves around, but there will be a dead
`spot where it first touched until the fingerislifted from the panel.
`It would
`probably be possible to reset the baselines on part of the screen as soon as the
`finger is not there. There could be some risk however in making this robust. As
`implemented, normal operation resumes as soon asthe fingeris picked up. The
`biggest dangerin this methodis that if the mutual cap baseline gets off, if won't
`recover. For example, the self-cap threshald for detecting water or a fingeris too
`high, 4 small amount of moisture that isn't detected by the self-cap could cause
`the mutual cap baseline to decrease.
`ff it gets below the Noise threshold, that
`baseline will lock and never update again, but will be hypersensitive. Similary,if
`a single sensor is repeatedly activated, or a finger approaches very slowly, the
`mutual cap baseline can increase.
`ff it increases more than NoiseThreshold,
`when the user stops tapping, the baseline will be locked and there will be an
`insensitive spat on the screen. Theoretically, if the baseline update rate and
`noise thresholds for the self-cap and mutual cap scan are exactly matched, this
`won't be a problem, but practically, self-cap and mutual cap sensing seem to
`have different sensitivities to different types of activation. So if you gotthe
`
`Fage 3 of 5
`
`

`

`thresholds exactly matched for a 9mm brass finger, they might not be matched
`for a 6mm water droplet. The LG testing did a fot of repeated tapping and
`expased these flaws. These flaws were made worse because of the workable
`noise thresholds were limited because of the noisy panel. At first we scoffed at
`the concept of this test since it didn't seem like a real world scenario, but it is not
`unlikely that some game form the app store will require repeated tapping in one
`location. After playingfor a while, the user may become somewhat sweaty,
`making this kind of scenario somewhat more likely to occur.
`
`There is also the limitation that the baseline update stops while a finger is on the
`screen.
`{lf the phone was in a hot car, then the user picked it up and started
`using if actively while a coal breeze is blowing outside the car, the ideal baseline
`could shift fairly rapidly and not update properly because the baseline is locked
`as long as the useris touching it.
`
`There were additional problems encountered due to a loss of sensitivity to water
`when Lenovo switched fromthe Single Solid Diamond to Dual Solid Diamond
`‘TO pattern.
`
`General Method used for LG:
`To get around theselimitations, a different method was used for LG. Rather
`than locking the baseline whena finger is present, the logic is inverted and the
`baseline is reset continuously as long as there is not a finger present. The scan
`method was changedto use a waterproof shield instead of the inverted shield.
`This allows the baselineto follow to negative numbers, but it willalways recover
`once the water is gone because the baseline will be reset. There are several
`practical cifficuities with this methad, Oneis that as a fingeris being placed on
`the screen, the mutual cap may havea slight signal increase before the fingeris
`detected by the self cap scan, so the baseline may get reset to a slightly higher
`than ideal value. Thatis combated somewhat by doingthe self-cap scan right
`before the mutual cap scan, but when no fingeris detected with self-cap, the
`baseline is reset with the previous mutual cap reading. That has the unfortunate
`side effect thai the baseline gets bumpedalittle high whena fingeris lifted.
`That might be prevented somewhat by requiring at least a couple cycles with no
`finger detected in self-cap before resetting the baseline.
`
`Orie issue found with the waterproof self-cap scan was that a water drop that
`was partially in the active area of the [TO and partially over the traces on the
`edge would create a much stronger signal that a water drop that was entirely
`within the active area. That is mostlikely caused because the drop couples to
`the grounded shield near the edge of the panel rather than coupling only to the
`driven shield inside the active area.
`
`On further consideration it seems like it would have been good fo continue using
`the inverted shield to detect water. That would prevent the baseline from being
`
`Fage 4of5
`
`

`

`| seern to remernber
`reset continuously when there was water on the screen.
`that there was some reason for using the waterproof self-cap scan, but | can’t
`think of any good reason now. One marginal reasonis that if there is a large
`water drop on the panel, there can be positive signals near the edge of the water
`depending on placement.
`If the baseline gets reset, this positive signal will be
`baselined out.
`[ call this a marginal reason because in order to avoid other
`problems, the threshold had to be set very low onthe self-cap so the mutual-cap
`baseline is not reset every cycle. This means that a water drop the had a
`positive signal at the edge could still cause a false touch for several cycles until
`the baseline was reset.
`
`Onesignificant side effect of using a waterproof self-cap scan and resetting
`whenevera touch is not detected is that it easily creates additional touches when
`there is water on the screen and auser fries to useit,
`For example:
`1} Place a drop on the screen. The baseline will be reset to a lower value
`2) Place a finger on the screen somewhere else. This will lock the baseline.
`3) Move the finger through the water drop, wiping it away.
`4) Now that the drop is removed, the signal at that location will return to
`normal, but the baseline will stil be low, causing a false extra touch. The
`finger will be detected as a second touch.
`Clearly that is a wet finger tracking issue that may not need to be supported for
`some customers, but if some degree of wet finger tracking is desired, this
`probiem must be resolved. Changing the self-cap scan to use inverted shield for
`water detection seemslike It could improvethis situation significantly because
`the baseline would lock as soon as the first water drop was detected. This
`hasn't been tried yet and there may be some fatal flaw that | didn’t think of.
`
`Self Cap Scanning with TMA300:
`
`The TMA300 device presents some challenges for implementing the self-cap
`scan. This was simplified somewhat by scanning only rows or columns. A self-
`cap scan of all sensors was not necessary since only finger detection, not
`position was required, There may be sorne advantages of performing a full self-
`cap scan of rows and columns.
`
`Note that the problemsin self-cap scanning discussed here can probably be
`greatly reduced by using series resistors on the sensors. This memo does not
`discuss what resistor values would be appropriate or what side effects (if any)
`this would have an the mutual cap scan.
`
`Thefirst problem for self-cap scanningis that the peak current through the CCH
`is high.
`
`<to be continued>
`
`

`

`
`Fennel To,
`
`savttoss
`ONOaswot
`
`
`"eee
`
`PERFOR &
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`infernal Correspondence
`
`WW: 7009
`
`Date: 3/2/2010
`To:
`Jeff Dahlin JVY}
`Author: Michael Hills (HFM)
`Author File#: HFM#0614
`Subject: TMA300 Water Rejection Baselining Using SelfCap
`(draft)
`|
`Category:
`Distribution: EBX, TATE, ELG, JVY
`
`
`Summary:
`Water rejection was implemented for the Lenove Rocket and LG Mini project on
`TMA300 by adding a self-cap scan to help manage baseline updating.
`Maintaining a good baselineis the first problem with water on a panel using a
`mutual cap scan. Depending on the panel and finger thresholds, this alone can
`in some cases provide water rejection and/or wetfinger tracking, but other panel
`designs can have very poor wetfinger tracking and in some cases even false
`touches from water on the panel even if the baseline algorithm is robust. The
`primary goal of the methods discussed in this memois to provide a robust
`baseline so that when the water is removed from the panelif will resume normal
`operation without having to reset the PSoC.
`
`Problem Background:
`There are a couple distinct problems with water on a panel that is scanned with
`mutual cap.
`
`The first problem is that water creates a negative signal on a mutual cap scan.
`See Figure {Need to add figure}. That makes it difficult to create a robust
`baseline update algorithm.
`if the panelisinitialized with wateror a finger on the
`panel, there must be the possibility to reset all the baselines oncethis is
`removedor moved. The baseline must be able to update overtime to
`accommodate shifts from temperature, but if water accumulates or goes away
`slowly due to condensation or evaporation, the baselines should not be updated.
`Using mutual cap scan it is practically impossible to distinguish between the
`situation where a PSoC is started with a finger an the pane! and it is then
`removed, or it is started without a finger and a water dropfalls on the panel. The
`waterproof method in VICK#331 and implemented in PSoC Designer 4.0 SP 6.1
`uses the assumption that the negative signal from water is less than the positive
`signal from a finger to distinguish the two events. That assumption seems to be
`
`Page tof 5
`
`

`

`true on the DVK, but does coversituations of a smail finger at startup. That
`assumption was not frue on the Lenove Rocket single solid diamond panel or the
`LG Mini panel. On both of these, the negative signal from water could be less
`than, equal to, or even largerthan the largest signal fromafinger.
`
`Even with the baseline aigorithrnsolidified, the level of water rejection /
`waterproof performance can vary significantly based on the design of the panel.
`For example, a large drop of water on the panel can create a positive mutual cap
`signal if the edge of the drop Is positioned correctly in relation fo the sensor. The
`magnitude or the positive signal depends on the panel design. Figure {Need to
`add figure} will show the profile of a water drop with positive signafs near the
`edge. A filter that ignores any positive signal next to a negative signal can
`prevent this kind of false touch, but that can also cause a finger to be rejected In
`certain cases with poor grounding of the phone (signal disparity with phone
`sitting on a box).
`In addition, finger tracking with water on the screen is also
`guite variable. On the Single Solid Diamond (SSD) Lenovo panel, fingertracking
`through a large puddle workedrelatively well with just the baseline improvement,
`but for the LG mini panel, and the updated Dual Solid Diamond (DSD} panelfor
`Lenovo, if did not work well at all, On the Lenove SSD panel, a puddle around a
`finger causedthe signal to spread significantly, but the peak signal was still
`located under the finger, and there was usually not a large increase in the signal
`around the edge of the puddle. This allowed reasonably good finger tracking
`with the existing centroid algorithm. This was not tested with poor grounding
`(SD), and it is tkely that this case would have had poorfingertracking with a
`puddie on the screen. On the Lenovo DSD panel and the LG panel, even with
`good grounding, the signal underthe finger was often not the strongest. The
`strongest signals would be around the edge of the puddle. Finger tracking in this
`situation would require modifications to the centroid algorithm similar to the large
`finger tracking solutions discussed in VICK#335 and VICK#359, or combining
`the mutual cap scan data with the self-cap scan data to find the fingerpositions.
`
`This memo only addresses the Baseline problem.
`
`General Method Description:
`
`The following two sections discuss the algorithms from a conceptual standpoint.
`Details of implementing the self-cap scan are discussed in a later section {not in
`this draft}. For the baseline improvement, two somewhat distinct methods were
`used for Lenovo Rocket and for LG Mini. There were advantages and
`disadvantages for both methods. Hopefully an even better method, possibly a
`hybrid of the two, can be develaped,
`
`General Method Used for Lenove:
`
`For Lenovo, a self-cap scan was performed immediately after each mutual cap
`scan, A baseline for each self-cap sensor is maintained. For the original single
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`solid diamond Lenovo Panel the scan was performed with an inverted shield. A
`normal shield will ideally cause water to have no effect on the self-cap reading.
`Without a shield, water is detected, but not as strongly as a finger. With an
`inverted shield, the signals from water on the panel are similar in strength to a
`finger. See Figure {Need fo add figure}. The data from the water scan was used
`in two ways.
`
`First, if self-cap detects a signal(this could indicate either water or a finger on
`the panel), baseline updating is stopped. The existing mutual cap baseline
`algorithm is modified so that a signal below the negative noise threshold locks
`the baseline instead of resetting the baseline. These two changes prevent
`moisture or water draps frorn causing the mutual cap baseline to decrease,
`resulting in a false touch when the water is removed. See Figure {Need to add
`fiqure}.
`
`Second, if the self-cap signal falls below the self-cap baseline by more than
`NoiseThreshold, all of the baselines are reset.
`If the PSoC is powered on when
`there is @ finger or water drop on the panel, this allows the baseline to be reset
`fo a lower or higher value when the finger or water is removed. Note that there
`is additional logic so that the reset isn’t performed until there are no otherfingers
`detected on the screen bythe self-cap scanto ensure that the panel is reset to a
`goad value. This does have a shortcoming in that if the panel is powered on
`with several water droplets, then sorne of them are wiped off, there could be
`false touches there had previously been water drops until all of the drops have
`been removed.
`
`This method is very good when working properly, because it keeps the baseline
`near the correct value ail of the time.
`{{ could be improved slightly in terms of
`how the baseline reset is done, As described here, if a finger is on the screen at
`power on, the finger will be tracked as if moves around, but there will be a dead
`spot where it first touched until the fingeris lifted from the panel.
`it would
`probably be possible to reset the baselines on part of the screen as soon as the
`finger is not there. There could be some risk however in making this robust, As
`implemented, normal operation resumes as soon as the finger is picked up. The
`biggest dangerin this methadis thatif the mutual cap baseline gets off, it won't
`recover. For example, the self-cap threshald for detecting water or a fingeris too
`high, a small amount of moisture that isn’t detected by the self-cap could cause
`the mutual cap baseline to decrease.
`If it gets below the Noise threshold, that
`baseline will lock and never update again, but will be hypersensitive. Similary, if
`a single sensor is repeatediy activated, or a finger approaches very slowly, the
`mutual cap baseline can increase.
`If it increases more than NoiseThreshold,
`when the user stops tapping, the basefine will be locked and there will be an
`insensitive spot on the screen. Theoretically, if the baseline update rate and
`noise thresholds for theself-cap and mutual cap scan are exactly maiched, this
`won't be a problem, but practically, self-cap and mutual cap sensing seem to
`have different sensitivities to different types of activation. So if you got the
`
`Page 3 af 5
`
`

`

`thresholds exactly matched for a 9mmbrass finger, they might not be matched
`for a 6mm water droplet. The LG testing did a lot of repeated tapping and
`exposed these flaws. These flaws were made worse because of the workable
`noise thresholds were limited because of the noisy panel. At first we scoffed at
`the concept of this test since it didn’t seemlike a real world scenario, but itis not
`unlikely that some game form the app store will require repeated tapping in one
`location. After playing for a while, the user may become somewhat sweaty,
`making this kind of scenario samewhat morelikely to occur.
`
`There is also the limitation that the baseline update stops while a finger is on the
`screen.
`if the phone was in a hot car, then the user picked it up and started
`using it actively while a cool breeze is blowing outside the car, the ideal baseline
`could shift fairly rapidly and not update properly because the baseline is locked
`as long as the useris touching Ht.
`
`There were additional problems encountered due to a loss of sensitivity to water
`when Lenovo switched from the Single Solid Diamond to Dual Solid Diamond
`ITO pattern,
`
`General Method used for LG:
`To get around these fimitations, a different method was used for LG. Rather
`than locking the baseline when a finger is present, the logic is inverted and the
`baseline is reset continuously as lang as there is not a finger present. The scan
`method was changed to use a waterproof shield instead of the inverted shield.
`This allows the baseline to follow to negative numbers, but if will always recover
`once the water is gone because the baseline will be reset. There are several
`practical difficulties with this method. One is that as a finger is being placed on
`the screen, the mutual cap may havea slight signal increase before the fingeris
`detected by the self cap scan, so the baseline may get reset to a slightly higher
`than ideal value. That is combated somewhat by doing the self-cap scan right
`before the mutual cap scan, but when ne finger is detected with seff-cap, the
`baseline is reset with the previous mutual cap reading. That has the unfortunate
`side effect that the baseline gets bumpeda little high when a finger Is lifted.
`That might be prevented somewhat by requiring at least a couple cycles with no
`finger detected In self-cap before resetting the baseline.
`
`One issue found with the waterproof self-cap scan was that a water drop that
`was partially in the active area of the [TO and partially over the traces on the
`edge would create a much stronger signal that a water drop that was entirely
`within the active area. That is most likely caused because the drop couples to
`the grounded shield near the edge of the panel rather than coupling only to the
`driven shield inside the active area.
`
`On further consideration it seemslike it would have been goad te continue using
`the inverted shield to detect water, That would prevent the baseline from being
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`| seem to remember
`reset continuously when there was water on the screen.
`that there was some reason for using the waterproof self-cap scan, but | can’t
`think of any geod reason now. One marginal reason is thatif there is a large
`water drop on the panel, there can be positive signals near the edge of the water
`depending on placement.
`{f the baseline gets reset, this positive signal will be
`baselined out.
`| call this a marginal reason becausein order to avoid other
`problems, the threshold had to be set very low onthe self-cap so the mutual-cap
`baseline is nat reset every cycle. This means that a water drop the had a
`positive signal at the edge could still cause a false touch for several cycles until
`the baseline was reset.
`
`Onesignificant side effect of using a waterproof self-cap scan and resetting
`whenever a touch is not detectedIs that it easily creates additional touches when
`there is water on the screen and a usertries to use if.
`For example:
`1) Place a drop onthe screen. The baseline will be reset to a lower value
`2) Place a finger on the screen somewhere else. This will lock the baseline.
`3} Move the finger through the water drop, wiping it away.
`4) Nowthat the drop is removed, the signal at that location will return to
`normal, but the baseline wil stil be low, causing a false extra touch. The
`finger will be detected as a second touch.
`Clearly that is a wetfinger tracking issue that may not need to be supported for
`some customers, but if some degree of wet finger tracking is desired, this
`problem must be resolved. Changing the self-cap scan to use inverted shield for
`water detection seems like it could improve this situation significantly because
`the baseline would lock as soonas thefirst water drop was detected. This
`hasn't been tried yet and there may be some fatal flaw that | didn’t think of.
`
`Self Cap Scanning with TMA300:
`
`The TMA300 device presents some challenges for implementing the self-cap
`scan. This was simplified somewhat by scanning only rows or columns. A self-
`cap scan of all sensors was not necessary since onlyfinger detection, not
`position wasrequired. There may be some advantages of performing a full self-
`cap scan of rows and columns.
`
`Note that the problemsin self-cap scanning discussed here can probably be
`greatly reduced by using series resistors on the sensors. This memo does not
`discuss what resistor values would be appropriate or what side effects (if any)
`this would have on the mutual cap scan.
`
`The first problem for self-cap scanningIs that the peak current through the CCIt
`is high.
`
`<to be continued>
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`

`

`
`0 gir
`co
`r2 CYPRESS
`
`‘wengosoooanatite
`
`PER FDR as
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`internal Correspondence
`
`Date: 3/8/2010
`Te: Eric Blom(EBX)
`Author: Michael Hills (HFM)
`Author File#: HFM#O62
`Subject: TTSP TMA300 Water Rejection Extension
`Gategory:
`Distribution: EBX, JVY
`
`WW: 2017010
`
`Summary:
`This outlines the planfor the preliminary version of the TMA300 TTSP water
`rejection extension.
`
`Background:
`Using a TX-Rx all points scan (mutual cap scan), water creates a negative
`signal. That makes i difficult to create a robust baseline update algorithm. A
`typical scenario is that when wateris on the panel, the baseline updates to a
`lower level than so when the wateris wiped off, the signal rises and is reported
`as a false touch that never goes away.
`
`A self-cap scanrespondsdifferently than a rnutual cap scan. Depending on the
`shield settings, water can cause almost no changein the signal, or if can cause
`a changein the same direction as a touch. By using a self-cap scan in addition
`to the mutual cap scan it is possible to make modify the baseline update
`algorithm to be more robust.
`
`See HFM#0614 for more in depth discussion.
`
`TTSP Extention:
`The TTSP extension will do the following:
`
`1) Implement a self-cap scan. This will be configurable to allow using different
`rnodes such as waterproof shield, inverted shield, increased IDAC gain, single
`ended measurement, etc. These options will be in place since options like
`inverted shield may ideally provide better waterproofing, but may result in
`currents tao high for TMA300 to handle, so other options may be necessary.
`
`Page tof?
`
`

`

`2} Override the standard baselining algorithm in the TMA3C0 user module with a
`baseline algorithm that takes the self-cap scan data into account. This will also
`have options to configure it to work with the different types of self-cap ecan.
`
`3) Include preliminary versions offiltering that may be useful for eliminating faise
`touches from positive signals fro water that can occurin some cases on a mutual
`cap scan.
`
`integration with TTSP and UM:
`The currently known hooks are listed below. More may be used for the complete
`implementation.
`
`Overloads:
`Replace TTSMain_TrueTouchStart to perforrn initialization/calibration of selfcap
`scan,
`
`Replace TTSScanSensors with a function that runs the self cap scan in addition
`to the mutual cap scan. Also, rather than callingTTUM_ScanAlSensors, it will
`call TTUM_CustomScanAilSensors which will run the modified baseline update
`routine,
`
`
`
`There may be some minor changes in the TMA306 user module necessary to
`allow the hooks to work.
`Ideally these will be rolled into the final PD 5.1 user
`module, so none of these modifications will be needed.
`
`Limitations:
`During this first phase, the extension will require more work to configure than is
`ideal.
`Instructions will be included.
`
`some filtering to help prevent false touches may be needed on some panels.
`The first version of the extension may include some preliminary versions of
`thesefilters that can be turned on, buf that are highly inefficient and probably not
`suifable for customer use.
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`

`

`
`
` SF CYPRESS |
`
`
`BE RPS Baa
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`internal Correspondence
`
`WW: 6878
`
`Bate: 5/4/2009
`To: Michele Paparella (MPU)
`Author: TOP(Tony Park}
`Author File#: TOP#34
`Subject: Water rejection in Krypton (TMG200}
`Gategory: Touch screen
`Distribution: Ho_apps,vud,ylim,ebx,
`
`Water rejection in Krypten
`
`Summary
`This documentation describes the way ofwater rejection in Krypton. Water rejection issue
`was initiated by Preston in Samsung mobile. This documentation includes what happens in
`PSoC with water drop to the panel and what is the possible solution in Krypton without
`shield,
`Newsuggested solution shows good water rejection cither finger touch down or lift-off, but
`accuracy of XY coordinate need to be further improved. Standardscanning methodand new
`water rejection scanning method must be usedboth at a same time in a project for water
`rejection. In this documentation, there are two scanning methods: I would call that “Water
`Rejection Scanning” for water rejection and “Standard Scanning” whichis in current UM.
`
`Test Setup
`lL. Panel: ITO LCD module from TPO
`2. Sensors: 9 cols and 8 rows
`3, PSoC: CY8CTMG200
`
`

`

`
`
`Seanning Methods
`1. Standard scanning method
`
` . 3
`
`yy
`4
`{Water on the panel}
`
`cage eaetimes sp
`5e
`4
`[Fingeron the panel]
`
`in standard scanning method, unused sensors are all grounded. Scanning sensoris
`being surrounded by ground plain. Water increases capacitance almost as much as
`
`finger touching, so we are not able to differentiate water from touching.
`
`[RAWcount Standard Scanning]
`Above standard scanning shows same RAWcount changes from either finger or water.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TR eStiieae
`
`Differentlyfrom standard scanning method, in water rejection

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket