Cruz-Hernandez, Juan Manuel.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 23, 20202019002575 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 12/947,321 11/16/2010 Juan Manuel Cruz-Hernandez IMM335 (051851-0396751) 1671 34300 7590 07/23/2020 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER PATEL, SANJIV D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/23/2020 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com kts_imm_docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUAN MANUEL CRUZ-HERNANDEZ Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–27. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Immersion Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a systems and methods for increasing haptic bandwidth in an electronic device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 An apparatus comprising: a touch-sensitive display; a first actuator coupled to the touch-sensitive display; a second actuator coupled to the touch-sensitive display; a processor coupled to the first and second actuators, the processor configured to: determine a haptic event based on a user interaction with a keyboard displayed on the touch-sensitive display; determine a first haptic effect and a second haptic effect based in part on the haptic event, the first haptic effect configured to simulate a boundary between a first key and a second key on the keyboard, and the second haptic effect configured to simulate a boundary between the second key and a third key; determine a third haptic effect based in part on the haptic event, the third haptic effect configured to simulate an area within the boundary of the second key, the third haptic effect different from the first haptic effect and the second haptic effect; determine a first selected actuator to output the first haptic effect; determine a second selected actuator to output the second haptic effect; apply a first command signal to the first selected actuator to output the first haptic effect from a first start time to a first stop time; determine that the first selected actuator has decelerated; apply a second command signal to the second selected actuator to output the second haptic effect from a second start time to a second stop time, wherein the first stop time occurs before the second start time and wherein a period between the first stop time and second start time is such that the first haptic effect is felt distinctly from the second haptic effect; apply a third command signal associated with the third haptic effect to one or more of the first actuator or the second actuator; and Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 3 apply an AC voltage to at least a portion of the first command signal to achieve a desired change in velocity from the first selected actuator. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Bailey US 7,161,580 B2 Jan. 9, 2007 Shimabukuro US 8,210,942 B2 July 3, 2012 Grant US 2006/0119573 A1 June 8, 2006 Colgate US 2007/0236450 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 Ramstein US 2007/0236474 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 Nogami US 2007/0290988 A1 Dec. 20, 2007 Meijer US 2009/0102805 A1 Apr. 23, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 1–8, and 12–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ramstein, Grant, Nogami, and Meijer. Final Act. 2. Claims 9, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ramstein, Nogami, Grant, Meijer, and Shimabukuro. Final Act. 11. Claims 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Shimabukuro, Grant, Nogami, Ramstein, and Meijer. Final Act. 13. Claims 21–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Shimabukuro, Bailey, Colgate, Nogami, and Meijer. Final Act. 19. Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 4 OPINION We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–10 and 12–27 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. With respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1–8 and 12–15, Appellant contends the Examiner erred in combining Ramstein, Grant, Nogami, and Meijer. Appeal Br. 40–41. In particular, Appellant argues “the Office Action’s motivation to include . . . disclosure from Meijer is hindsight driven” and “not sufficient to establish a motivation to combine these four disparate references.” Id. at 41. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s argument relies only on the Examiner’s statement on page 6 of the Final Action that combines Meijer with the previously combined Ramstein, Nagomi, and Grant. Id. The Examiner separately concluded that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the base haptic vibrotactile device of Ramstein with the cited teachings of Nogami “for the predictable result of applying a vibration profile in order to facilitate sensation of a plane or object surface.” Final Act 4 (citing Nogami ¶ 17). The Examiner also concluded it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify the base haptic input device of Ramstein and Nogami with the cited teachings of Grant “for the Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 5 predictable result of providing acceleration and braking to an actuator.” Final Act. 5 (citing Grant ¶¶ 43–44). Because Appellant’s argument does not consider the Examiner’s separate reasoning for combining Ramstein with Nogami (Final Act. 4) and for combining Ramstein and Nogami with Grant (Final Act. 5), Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Moreover, Appellant’s argument seeks to hold the Examiner to the teaching-suggestion-motivation standard (Appeal Br. 42); such a standard is not required. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415 (2007). The Examiner has provided adequate reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Ramstein, Nogami, Grant, and Meijer. See Final Act. 4–6; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). As the Examiner makes clear, the Examiner’s Meijer modification is merely an improvement to Ramstein, Nogami, and Grant’s base haptic input device. Final Act. 6; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s conclusion lacks rational underpinning, or that modifying Ramstein, Nogami, and Grant’s haptic input device with Meijer’s teaching of a haptic input device with a third haptic effect is not a predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions. Appellant also has not identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 6 ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor has Appellant provided evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner engaged in improper hindsight reasoning in combining the cited teachings of Ramstein, Nogami, Grant, and Meijer. Appellant also contends that Ramstein teaches away from Meijer’s third haptic effect. Appeal Br. 42 (citing Ramstein ¶ 21 (“with only two distinct haptic effects, a user can navigate and select any desired key without the need for visual guidance”)). Appellant’s “teaching away” argument fails because Appellant has not identified where Ramstein actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the limitation “determine a third haptic effect based in part on the haptic event, the third haptic effect configured to simulate an area within the boundary of the second key, the third haptic effect different from the first haptic effect and the second haptic effect.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing Fulton). We note that Ramstein teaches that, if a key is depressed, a third haptic effect can be generated. Ramstein ¶ 22. Indeed, Ramstein teaches that up to six haptic effects may be generated. Id. Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 7 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining Ramstein, Nogami, Grant, and Meijer. Turning to the teachings of the prior art, Appellant contends Ramstein does not teach or suggest a “boundary,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 43 (citing Ramstein ¶¶ 20–21). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require a “boundary,” but rather a “haptic effect configured to simulate a boundary.” Ans. 6. We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ramstein teaches that, “during sliding contact on the screen, in areas not part of the numbered areas, no haptic effect will be generated,” while “the sliding motion of a finger on touch screen 15 may generate a fifth haptic effect, and a sixth haptic effect mav be generated when the finger encounters the edge of one of the keys.” Id. (citing Ramstein ¶¶ 20, 22). Thus, we agree that Ramstein teaches or suggests the limitation “haptic effect configured to simulate a boundary,” as recited in claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner that Meijer also teaches the disputed limitation. Id. (citing Meijer, Fig. 8, ¶¶ 48–50). In the Reply Brief, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, as well as the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2–8, 12, 14, and 15, not argued separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 43. Appellant makes hindsight arguments for claims 9, 10, and 16 (Appeal Br. 43–44), claims 17–20 (id. at 44–45), and claims 21–27 (id. at 45). We find Appellant’s arguments with regard to those claims Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 8 unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with regard to claims 1–8 and 12–15. Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner entered a new ground of rejection in the Answer when the Examiner relied on Meijer rather than Colgate as teaching the limitation “haptic effect configured to simulate a boundary,” as recited in claim 21. Reply Br. 5–7; Ans. 10. Allegations that an Examiner’s answer contains undesignated new grounds of rejection must be resolved by filing a petition to reopen prosecution under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181, the absence of which constitutes waiver of such arguments. 37 C.F.R. §41.40 (“Failure of appellant to timely file such a petition will constitute a waiver of any arguments that a rejection must be designated as a new ground of rejection.”); accord MPEP § 1207.03. Appellant did not file a petition and, therefore, waived any argument that the Examiner’s Answer includes new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of independent claims 17 and 21, as well as the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 9, 10, 16, 18–20, and 22–27. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–27. Appeal 2019-002575 Application 12/947,321 9 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 12–15 103(a) Ramstein, Grant, Nogami, Meijer 1–8, 12–15 9, 10, 16 103(a) Ramstein, Nogami, Grant, Meijer, Shimabukuro 9, 10, 16 17–20 103(a) Shimabukuro, Grant, Nogami, Ramstein, Meijer 17–20 21–27 103(a) Shimabukuro, Bailey, Colgate, Nogami, Meijer 21–27 Overall Outcome 1–10, 12–27 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation