Ex Parte Ramsay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 27, 2015

12615831 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2015)

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. 12/615,831 11/10/2009 Erin B. Ramsay IMM334 (51851/370770) 1348 34300 7590 11/30/2015 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP 1001 W Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 EXAMINER ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2015 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 ERIN B. RAMSAY, HENRIQUE D. DA COSTA, NEIL OLIEN and ROBERT A. LACROIX ___________ Appeal 2013-007959 Application 12/615,831 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “[s]ystems and methods for minimal haptic implementation.” Abstract. Appeal 2013-007959 Application 12/615,831 2 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A system comprising: an actuator; and a control-circuit in communication with the actuator, the control circuit configured to: receive a 2-bit signal comprising a first bit indicating a power state and a second bit indicating an actuation state; and transmit a power signal based on the two bit signal, the power signal configured to cause the actuator to operate in the actuation state at a fixed power. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–18 and 20–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cunningham (US Patent Number 7,307,619 B2; issued December 11, 2007). Final Rejection 2–6. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cunningham and Orsini (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0238544 A1; published September 24, 2009). Final Rejection 7. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 29, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed June 7, 2013), the Answer (mailed, April 11, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed August 30, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Appellants argue that Cunningham fails to disclose receiving a “2-bit signal comprising a first bit indicating a power state and a second bit indicating an actuation state” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner finds Cunningham column 21, lines 46–54 discloses the claimed 2-bit signal. Final Rejection 3–4. Cunningham discloses in column 21, Appeal 2013-007959 Application 12/615,831 3 lines 47–54, “the signal from the host to the device can be a single bit . . . In yet a more complex embodiment, the signal can include a direction, giving both a magnitude and a sense for actuation.” Appellants argue that “Cunningham does not disclose that either the magnitude or the direction is added as part of a digital signal, let alone as only a single bit of a digital signal.” Appeal Brief 8–9. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The employment of a 2- bit signal is well known in the art and claim 1 only requires that the control circuit is “configured” to receive a 2-bit signal, however Cunningham does not provide a correlation between magnitude/direction and a bit signal as the Examiner finds.1 See Final Rejection 4. Further, Cunningham does not associate a multiple bit signal with disclosed complex embodiments; instead, Cunningham appears to employ analog signals in the complex embodiments because the magnitude/direction characteristics are known characteristics of analog signals and not digital (bit) signals. See Cunningham, column 21, lines 52-54. Therefore we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 21 and 26, commensurate in scope, as well as, the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–20 and 22–25. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–26 are reversed. 1 “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l., Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appeal 2013-007959 Application 12/615,831 4 REVERSED lv