Antero Tossavainen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

13880439 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

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.
13/880,439 06/10/2013 Antero Tossavainen 800.1504.U1 (US) 1148
10948 7590 01/02/2020
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
MATHEWS, CRYSTAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
USPTO@hspatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTERO TOSSAVAINEN, VESA KAJANUS, and
PETRI SORONEN
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 38–42, 44–54, and 56–64. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia
Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “display apparatus providing speaker
functionality for use in mobile devices.” Spec. 1:6–7. Claim 38, reproduced
below with the key limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
38. An apparatus comprising:
a first part configured to form at least part of a case of the
apparatus;
a second part configured to form at least part of a display
for the apparatus;
a coupling configured to couple the first part to the
second part; and
at least two actuators coupled to the second part and
configured to apply a force to the second part to generate a
displacement of the second part, wherein the apparatus is
configured to:
in a first mode of operation, operate the at least
two actuators to generate a translational displacement of the
second part relative to the first part to provide a first acoustic
amplitude of sound from the translational displacement of the
second part; and
in a second mode of operation, operate at least one
of the at least two actuators to generate a non-translational
displacement of the second part relative to the first part to
provide a second acoustic amplitude of sound from the non-
translational displacement of the second part which is less than
the first acoustic amplitude of sound.

Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shiga US 2006/0022958 A1 Feb. 2, 2006
Burrough US 2010/0156818 A1 June 24, 2010
Hatanaka US 2011/0003124 A1 Jan. 6, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 38, 40–42, 44, 52–54, and 58–64 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Burrough. Final Act. 3–11.
Claim 39 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Burrough and Hatanaka. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 45–51, 56, and 57 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Burrough and Shiga. Final Act. 13–17.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 38, 40–42, 44, 52–54, and 58–64 over
Burrough
The Examiner finds Burrough suggests all limitations of claim 38.
Final Act. 3–6. In particular, the Examiner finds Burrough discloses
providing the same haptic profile to at least two different haptic actuators to
form a compound haptic effect (Burrough, Figure 1D, haptic actuators 136,
140, protective layer 120, Hcompound), and that such disclosure suggests the
key limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Burrough ¶ 49); see also Final Act. 2–3
(citing Burrough ¶ 53) (“The first amplitude occurs when the protective
layer is moved as a single unitary member, resulting from the H[compound]
haptic effects applied to both actuators.”), Final Act. 5–6 (citing Burrough
¶¶ 49, 53) (“[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
4
would have known how to modify the haptic profiles applied to the actuators
within Burroughs’s device to achieve ‘translational displacement.’”), and
Ans. 12–17.
Appellant argues, among other arguments, that Burrough does not
describe the key limitation. See Appeal Br. 5–13. For example, Appellant
presents the following arguments:
[T]he combination of H1 and H2 as seen in Fig. 1D increases the
quantity of displacement at the particular location “A” shown,
but not the entire layer 120. “A”, “B” and “C” shown [in Figure
1D of Burrough] will all have different displacements and, thus,
there is no translational planar motion displacement disclosed or
suggested. Fig. 2A clearly shows limited localized effects for
each actuator as shown by the circles around each actuator and
including showing non-translational effects, such as “silent
areas” versus the other areas.
Appeal Br. 8. “A member can be ‘unitary’ and still bend for example. There
is no disclosure or suggestion that an entire unit 120 moves in unison to
provide translation of the entire unit 120 as the examiner has stated.” Appeal
Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 1–12;
In light of Appellant’s arguments, we determine the Examiner erred in
finding Burrough suggests the following key limitation of claim 38: “operate
the at least two actuators to generate a translational displacement of the
second part relative to the first part.”
The claim language requires translational displacement of the second
part relative to the first part. That is, the second part must undergo
translational displacement.
Appellant’s Specification discloses the following:
With respect to figure 10 an example of the motion of the
window plate 303/display assembly 304 is shown when a
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
5
symmetrical pairing of the piezoelectric actuators 305a and 305b
are driven simultaneously or substantially in parallel. The force
produced by the first piezoelectric actuator 305a is shown by the
first force arrow 1001a and the force produced by the second
piezoelectric actuator 305b is shown by the second force arrow
1001b. As can be seen when both of the piezoelectric actuators
305a and 305b are operating in parallel using substantially the
same drive current to produce substantially the same magnitude
force at substantially the same time the window plate 303/display
assembly 304 moves in a plane substantially perpendicular to the
plane described or defined by the window plate 303/display
assembly 304. In other words the window plate 303/display
assembly 304 moves in such a way that it is a substantially a
linear translation in the dimension perpendicular into and out of
the apparatus can (in other words the ‘z’ direction as compared
to the ‘x’ and ‘y’ directions which define the display assembly).
The movement of the window plate 303/display assembly 304
can be shown by the dashed lines 1101.
Spec. 27:6–21 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification describes
translational displacement of the window plate/display assembly as linear
movement into and out of the apparatus can as depicted in Appellant’s
Figure 10.
Appellant’s Specification further discloses the following:
With respect to figure 11 a further example of the
operation of such embodiments of the application as described
herein is described shown in further detail. In such an example
the window plate 303/display assembly 304 is subject to the force
or moment produced by only the second piezoelectric actuator
305b as shown by the force arrow 1001b. In such an example the
motion of the window plate 303/display assembly 304 is such that
the window plate 303/display assembly 304 effectively pivots
about the point of sealing between the frame part 301 and the
body part 311. The pivoting action is shown in figure 11 by the
dashed lines 1201. As described herein the motion of the display
can be configured to drive an air mass in order that it produces
an acoustic signal. However in such embodiments the acoustic
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
6
wave is generated such that the majority of the acoustic wave
occurs around the area of the second piezoelectric actuator 305b.
Spec. 28:11–24 (emphasis added). Thus, the Specification describes non-
translational displacement of the window plate/display assembly as pivoting
movement as depicted in Appellant’s Figure 11.
In light of Appellant’s Specification, we interpret “translational
displacement” as being distinct from “non-translational displacement” and
thus requiring the entirety of the second part (displaced structure) to undergo
translational displacement, thereby avoiding any pivoting movements (non-
translational displacement) of any portions of the second part.
Burrough discloses the following:
In some cases as shown in FIG. 1D, a compound haptic effect
Hcompound can be generated by providing the same or different
haptic profiles to at least two different haptic actuators which
interfere with each other (either constructively or destructively)
to form compound haptic effect Hcompound.
Burrough ¶ 49 (emphasis omitted).
Burrough further discloses the following:
Generally speaking, substantially all of protective layer 120 can
be provided with haptic sensations as a single unitary member,
however, it is possible to provide for individually-moving
portions of protective layer 120 by providing each portion with
their own haptic actuator where the haptic responses can be
limited to particular region of surface 126 with effective range R
as shown in FIG. 2A.
Burrough ¶ 53.
Thus, Burrough discloses operating at least two haptic actuators with
the same haptic profiles and providing haptic sensations to protective layer
120 as a single unitary member. Nonetheless, these disclosures in Burrough
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
7
do not require the protective layer 120 to, in its entirety, undergo
translational displacement; rather, these disclosures suggest bending of
protective layer 120. Put another way, Burrough discloses providing a haptic
sensation to part or all of protective layer 120, but when the haptic sensation
is provided to all of protective layer 120, Burrough suggests bending of
protective layer 120 rather than translational displacement of the protective
layer 120 in its entirety.
In summary, because we conclude the key limitation of claim 38
requires translational displacement of the second part relative to the first
part, and we interpret the “translational displacement” as requiring the
entirety of the second part to undergo translational displacement, thereby
avoiding any pivoting movements (non-translational displacement) of any
portions of the second part, we find Burrough does not suggest the key
limitation of claim 38. At best, Burrough describes non-translational
displacement of protective layer 120 because Burrough suggests bending of
protective layer 120, which we interpret as non-translational displacement
because such bending corresponds to pivoting movements.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40–42, 44, 52, 53,
58, 59, 61, and 62, which depend from claim 38.
Independent claim 54 recites “operating the at least two actuators to
generate a translational displacement of the second part relative to the first
part,” which is essentially the same as the key limitation of claim 38. We,
therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 54. We also
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 63 and 64, which depend
from claim 54.
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
8
Independent claim 60 recites “controlling at least two actuators to, in a
first mode, generate a translational displacement of a second part relative to
a first part,” which is essentially the same as the key limitation of claim 38.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 60.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 39 over Burrough and Hatanaka
The Examiner does not find Hatanaka cures the deficiency of
Burrough. See Final Act. 12–13.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
39.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 45–51, 56, and 57 over Burrough and
Shiga
The Examiner does not find Shiga cures the deficiency of Burrough.
See Final Act. 13–17.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
45–51, 56, and 57.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 38–42, 44–54, and 56–64 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
38, 40–42,
44, 52–54,
58–64
103(a) Burrough 38, 40–42,
44, 52–54,
58–64
Appeal 2018-001397
Application 13/880,439
9
39 103(a) Burrough,
Hatanaka
39
45–51, 56,
57
103(a) Burrough, Shiga 45–51, 56,
57
Overall
Outcome
38–42, 44–
54, 56–64

REVERSED