Immersion Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 21, 2021

2020000037 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2021)

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. 15/042,911 02/12/2016 Robert LACROIX IMM439C1 1752 99292 7590 04/21/2021 Medler Ferro Woodhouse & Mills/Immersion 8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1060 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER JONES, HEATHER RAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2021 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): docketing@medlerferro.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com tmedler@medlerferro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT LACROIX, JUAN MANUEL CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, and JAMAL SABOUNE Appeal 2020-000037 Application 15/042,911 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Immersion Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000037 Application 15/042,911 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “[r]ecording real-time data from an object in a scene, and reproducing its experience haptically” along with a video of the scene. Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1–21 are pending; claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 12–17. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for playing haptic encoded media, the method comprising: receiving media data which includes at least video or audio data recorded at a remote capture device; receiving haptic data which includes force information for one or more forces externally experienced by a user of the remote capture device, the force information having acceleration or magnitude components recorded at the remote capture device concurrently with the video or audio data being recorded; filtering, using a band-pass filter, the acceleration or magnitude components to create filtered haptic data; synchronizing the media data and the filtered haptic data to create the haptic encoded media; and playing the haptic encoded media on an electronic playback device which includes a haptic output device that reproduces the force information. Appeal Br. 12. Rejection The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Rivera-Cintron US 2005/0062841 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Anderson US 2013/0198625 A1 Aug. 1, 2013 Wikander US 2014/0093221 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 Hughes US 2017/0316718 A1 Nov. 2, 2017 Appeal 2020-000037 Application 15/042,911 3 Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rivera-Cintron, Anderson, Wikander, and Hughes. Final Act. 3–4. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Hughes teaches the claimed “filtering, using a band pass filter, the acceleration or magnitude components” of received haptic data, because Hughes “can perform a band-pass filter on audio data” which is then “converted into haptic data.” Ans. 26; Hughes Fig. 4, ¶ 49. The Examiner finds that, “[w]hile the haptic data is audio data that has been converted in the Hughes reference, the haptic data is still considered to be filtered.” Ans. 26. Appellant argues the Examiner “improperly relies on Hughes” for the filtering limitation, because “Hughes at most filter[s] audio data, not haptic data.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Hughes “performs such filtering on audio data, prior to converting it to haptic data, to match the hearing preferences of a user, per a user hearing profile.” Id. at 9. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. In formulating a rejection under obviousness, “[t]he proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” MPEP § 2141 (III). “The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Appeal 2020-000037 Application 15/042,911 4 Claim 1 recites “receiving . . . video or audio data”; “receiving haptic data which includes . . . acceleration or magnitude components”; and “filtering . . . the acceleration or magnitude components.” Thus, claim 1 distinguishes between “audio data” and “haptic data,” and claim 1 requires a step of filtering components of haptic data. In contrast, the Examiner relies on Hughes’s filtering audio data. See Ans. 26–27 (“the audio data has been filtered”); Hughes ¶ 49. Hughes may teach filtered haptic data, because Hughes converts the filtered audio data to haptic data (see Hughes ¶ 49; Ans. 26); Hughes, however, does not teach a step of filtering the haptic components. Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Hughes teaches or suggests the claimed filtering step. See Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner does not rely on the other cited references for filtering haptic data components as claimed; thus the Examiner has not established the prior art teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 7. Further, the Examiner has not explained why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner finds “while Hughes is applying the band-pass filter to audio signals, the concept of using a band-pass filter can easily be applied to the acceleration or magnitude components that are used to create the haptic data in the Applicant’s invention.” Final Act. 8. Such conclusory analysis is not sufficient to support a finding of obviousness, as the Examiner has not explained why Hughes’ band pass filter would be applied to haptic data. See Appeal Br. 9, 10; MPEP § 2141 (III) (“The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.”). Appeal 2020-000037 Application 15/042,911 5 Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references render independent claim 1 obvious. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the independent claims, or the claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 103(a) Rivera-Cintron, Anderson, Wikander, Hughes 1–21 REVERSED