Ex Parte Harley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11021300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JONAH HARLEY and DALE SCHROEDER ____________________ Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a pointing device having a puck that is confined to move in a field of motion on a surface (Spec. 4, ll. 3-4). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A pointing device, comprising: a first surface having a puck field of motion defined thereon, wherein the puck field of motion is a planar field of motion; a moveable puck confined to move on said first surface, said moveable puck to activate a cursor tracking function in response to a vertical pressure applied to the moveable puck, the moveable puck comprising: a first member and a second member, wherein said first and second members are spaced apart from one another by a resilient spacer when no force is applied between said first and second members; a tilt mechanism for allowing said first and second members to assume a tilted configuration with respect to one another in response to a force applied between said first and second members, said tilted configuration being Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 3 responsive to said force location, direction, and magnitude; a clicker comprising a mechanical device that has a dimension that changes in response to a force being applied thereto in which the change in dimension is a non-linear function of the applied force; and a tilt position sensor that detects a tilt position of said first member with respect to said second member, wherein the tilt position sensor is configured to generate a signal in response to the applied force on the clicker. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Armstrong US 6,285,356 B1 Sep. 04, 2001 Suzuki US 2004/0119687 Al Jun. 24, 2004 Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Armstrong and Suzuki. II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Armstrong and Suzuki teaches or would have suggested device comprising “a first surface having a puck field of motion defined thereon” that “is a planar field of motion,” and “a movable puck confined to move on said first surface” (claim 1, emphasis added). Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Armstrong Armstrong discloses a displacement joystick with compression- sensitive sensors, wherein Armstrong’s Fig. 1 is reproduced below: In Fig. 1, joystick 10 includes an extending arm 16 with a first end or lower end within confines of a housing or base 18 that is attached to or engaged with force application member 22 of a sensor compression applicator (col. 7, ll. 13-19), wherein the arm 16 is moveable or displaceable radially in four directions with respect to an axis through the length of the arm from a normal resting position of the arm 16 (col. 7, ll. 29-32). Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 5 IV. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Armstrong teaches “a first surface having a puck field of motion (18 and 30) defined thereon, … and a moveable puck (surface of handle 24) confined to move on said first surface” (Ans. 5). However, Appellants argue that “Armstrong teaches a joystick” wherein “the actual movements of the joystick are not planar because the stem and corresponding structure move in three-dimensional space, rather than according to a defined plane” (Reply Br. 9). Upon review of the record, we agree with Appellants. In particular, we do not find any teaching of “a first surface having a puck field of motion defined thereon” that is “planar,” or “a movable puck confined to move on said first surface” as required by claim 1 in the portions of Armstrong relied upon by the Examiner. Armstrong discloses a joystick comprising an arm attached at one end to a force application member, and that is moveable radially in four directions with respect to an axis through the length of the arm (FF). We do not find any teachings of a “surface” having a “planar” puck field of motion “thereon” in the portions of Armstrong cited by the Examiner. That is, although the Examiner finds Amstrong’s joystick 10 to be the claimed “puck” and Armstrong’s housing 18 in combination with semispherical restrain member 30 to be the claimed “surface” (Ans. 5), as indicated in the portion of Armstrong cited by the Examiner, housing 18 and restrain member 30 do not provide a surface having the puck field of motion “thereon” as required by claim 1 (FF). Furthermore, since Armstrong discloses that one end of the arm of the joystick is attached and the arm moves radially in four directions with respect to an axis through the length Appeal 2010-005379 Application 11/021,300 6 of the arm (id.), we agree with Appellants that “the actual movements of the joystick are not planar” (Reply Br. 9, emphasis added). Similarly, we do not find any teachings in the portions of Armstrong cited by the Examiner of the “a movable puck confined to move on said first surface,” as required by claim 1. In particular, since the joystick 10 is attached at one end and moves radially in four directions with respect to its axis (FF), it is not confined to move “on said first surface” (claim 1, emphasis added). Since the Examiner has not made a clear distinction as to what teachings of Armstrong comprise or would have suggested the “surface” having a “planar” field of motion “defined thereon” or a movable puck confined to “move on the surface” (claim 1, emphasis added), nor has the Examiner identified how Suzuki cures the noted deficiencies of Armstrong, the Examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of proof required for the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 over Armstrong and Suzuki. Independent claim 8 recites similar limitations and thus stands with claim 1. Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of independent claim 8 and claims 2-7 and 9-13 respectively depending from claims 1 and 8 over Armstrong and Suzuki. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED peb