Ex Parte Olien et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2012

10916726 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

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. 10/916,726 08/11/2004 Neil T. Olien IMM204 (51851-293422) 2064 34300 7590 11/20/2012 PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 WEST FOURTH STREET WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101 EXAMINER KARIMI, PEGEMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NEIL T. OLIEN, GEORGE V. ANASTAS, and ALEXANDER JASSO ____________ Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28. Claims 15-19, 24, 27, and 29-32 are cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention is directed to a system for providing controlled friction in a haptic feedback device. (See generally Abstract.) In one embodiment, the Specification describes an electromagnetic brake including a controlled magnetic circuit air gap between the magnetic target and magnetic core to help minimize the residual magnetization effects, while still providing the magnetic core of the actuator with the ability to effectively communicate with the magnetic target. (See Specification [0041].) Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A device comprising: a magnetic target; a magnetic core configured to be in communication with the magnetic target to provide a haptic effect; and a partition configured to maintain a magnetic circuit air gap between the magnetic target and the magnetic core and to provide friction between the magnetic target and the magnetic core. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13, 14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi (US Pat. Pub. 2003/ 0080939 A1; May 1, 2003). (Ans. 3-5.) 2. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi and Fish (US Pat. Pub. 2002/0044132 A1; Apr. 18, 2002). (Ans. 6.) Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 3 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Kobayashi discloses every recited limitation of illustrative claim 1, including a partition configured to maintain a magnetic circuit air gap between the magnetic target and the magnetic core and to provide friction between the magnetic target and the magnetic core. (Ans. 3-5.) On the other hand, Appellants contend that Kobayashi fails to disclose this feature. In particular, Appellants assert that Kobayashi fails to maintain an air gap between the magnetic target and the magnetic core. (App. Br. 4-5.) ANALYSIS Claim 1-11, 13, 14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 Based on the record before us, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Kobayashi. Namely, we agree with Appellants that the Kobayashi’s air gap is eliminated, and thus not maintained as required by claim 1. As shown in Figure 1 reproduced below, Kobayashi describes a haptic input apparatus including an electromagnetic brake where a magnetic plate 11 opposes the lining material 12 on the upper surface of electromagnetic coil 5. Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 4 Kobayashi’s haptic input apparatus including electromagnetic brake (Kobayashi Fig. 1, [0030].) While the Examiner correctly identifies that an air gap exists between the magnetic plate 11 and the lining material 12 (Ans. 3 and 7.), this air gap is not maintained when the electromagnetic coil is activated. Specifically, as described by Appellants, when the electromagnetic coil is energized, the magnetic plate 11 is drawn to the electromagnetic coil 5 (through the leaf springs 10b flexing) and will contact the lining material 12 to directly apply the external force or braking force, i.e. friction. (App. Br. 5 (citing Kobayashi [0030] and [0034]).) The Examiner responds, not by contesting the Appellants’ interpretation of Kobayashi, but by finding that the claimed limitation does not require maintaining an air gap and providing friction to “happen[] simultaneously.” (Ans. 7.) We disagree. Claim 1 does not merely require that the magnetic air gap must exist at some point in time, but instead expressly requires that the partition maintain a magnetic air gap and provide friction. (See e.g., WEBSTER’S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1995) Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 5 (defining maintain as “2. To preserve or keep in a given condition… 3. b. to keep in existence”) We construe the recited limitation to require keeping the magnetic air gap in existence while providing friction. The Specification is consistent with this interpretation. (See e.g., Specification [0043] (“As such, the partitions 216, 224 maintain a substantially constant magnetic circuit air gap between the magnetic target 208 and the magnetic core 232 while providing friction between the magnetic target 208 and the magnetic core 232.”)(emphasis added).) Thus, a skilled artisan would understand that the claimed partition must be configured to maintain the magnetic air gap while also providing friction. As discussed above, Kobayashi’s air gap is eliminated when the electromagnetic coil is activated. Kobayashi then does not disclose a partition configured to maintain a magnetic air gap between the magnetic target and the magnetic core, as required by claim 1. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 20 which recites commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-11, 13, 14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 for the same reasons. Claim 12 In the obviousness rejection of claim 12, the Examiner does not change the underlying rationale as applied to claim 1 explained above. Therefore, for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, we likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejections of the dependent claim 12. Appeal 2010-006951 Application 10/916,726 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 is reversed. REVERSED kis