Antero Tossavainen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

13818225 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019)

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.
13/818,225 06/10/2013 Antero Tossavainen 800.1502.U1 (US) 4850
10948 7590 12/27/2019
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
MATHEWS, CRYSTAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
USPTO@hspatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTERO TOSSAVAINEN, VESA KAJANUS,
and PETRI SORONEN
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
Technology Center 2600
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 to reject claims 21–28, 30–36, 38–44, 46, and 49–51.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia
Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “display apparatus providing speaker
functionality for use in mobile devices.” Spec. 1:5–6. Claim 21, reproduced
below with the key limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
21. An apparatus comprising:
a first part configured to form at least part of a case of the
apparatus;
a second part configured to form at least one of:
a front window, and
at least one layer of a display assembly for the
apparatus;
a flexible membrane coupling, at a first area of contact, the
first part and, at a second area of contact, the second part; and
at least two actuators coupled to the second part and
configured to actuate the second part to generate a translational
planar motion displacement of the second part based at least
partially upon the flexible membrane that enables the
translational planar motion displacement of the second part to
generate sound waves when the second part is actuated by the at
least two actuators, where the at least two actuators are
configured to generate the translational planar motion
displacement of the second part comprising at least one of:
an entirety of the front window having the
translational planar motion displacement, and
an entirety of the at least one layer of a display
assembly having the translational planar motion displacement.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Burrough US 2010/0156818 A1 Jun. 24, 2010
Takenaka US 2008/0055277 A1 Mar. 6, 2008

Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 21–28, 33–36, 39–44, 46, and 49–51 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Burrough. Final Act. 7–13.
Claims 30–32 and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Burrough and Takenaka. Final Act. 13–15.
OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 21–28, 33–36, 39–44, 46, and 49–51
by Burrough
The Examiner finds Burrough describes all limitations of claim 21.
Final Act. 7–9. In particular, the Examiner finds Burrough discloses
providing haptic sensations to the protective layer 120 (Burrough, Figures
1B–1E) as a single unitary member, and that such disclosure describes the
key limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing Burrough ¶ 53); see also Ans. 5–11.
Appellant argues that Burrough does not describe the key limitation.
See Appeal Br. 6–23. For example, Appellant presents the following
arguments:
There is no disclosure or suggestion of all locations “A”, “B” and
“C” shown [in Figure 1D of Burrough] having a same equal
displacement (H1 and H2 together) and, thus, there is no
translational planar motion displacement disclosed or suggested.
Fig. 2A clearly shows limited localized effects for each actuator
as shown by the circles around each actuator and including
showing non-translational effects, such as “silent areas” versus
the other areas.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues that “[a] member can be ‘unitary’
and still bend for example. There is no disclosure or suggestion that an
entire unit 120 moves in unison to provide translation of the entire unit 120
as the examiner has stated.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 1–10.
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
4
In light of Appellant’s arguments, we determine the Examiner erred in
finding Burrough describes the following key limitation:
where the at least two actuators are configured to generate the
translational planar motion displacement of the second part
comprising at least one of:
an entirety of the front window having the
translational planar motion displacement, and
an entirety of the at least one layer of a display
assembly having the translational planar motion displacement.
The claim language requires translational planar motion displacement
of an entirety of the front window or the at least one layer of a display
assembly. That is, the entirety of the structure must undergo translational
displacement.
This interpretation of the claim language is consistent with the
disclosure in Appellant’s Specification:
With respect to Figure 9 an example of the operation of
the piezoelectric actuator 305 is shown. In Figure 9 the
piezoelectric actuator 305 is configured to vibrate 1001 in such a
way that the bending moment of the piezoelectric actuator 305
transfers a force via the rubber force contact 501 to the display
assembly 304 causing the display to move 1003 substantially in
translational mode of displacement. The display assembly 304 as
discussed herein can be configured in some embodiments to
move in such a way that it is substantially a linear translation in
the dimension perpendicularly into and out of the apparatus 10
(the ‘z’ direction as compared to the x and y directions which
define the display plane) perpendicular to the membrane layer
because of the relatively large degree of flexibility available at
the membrane joint 1005 compared to the display assembly
rigidity.
Spec. 22:17–28.
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
5
Burrough discloses the following:
Generally speaking, substantially all of protective layer 120 can
be provided with haptic sensations as a single unitary member,
however, it is possible to provide for individually-moving
portions of protective layer 120 by providing each portion with
their own haptic actuator where the haptic responses can be
limited to [a] particular region of surface 126 with effective range
R as shown in FIG. 2A.
Burrough ¶ 53.
Thus, Burrough discloses providing haptic sensations to protective
layer 120 as a single unitary member. Nonetheless, these disclosures in
Burrough do not require the single unitary member to, in its entirety,
undergo translational displacement; rather, these disclosures suggest bending
of protective layer 120. Put another way, Burrough discloses providing a
haptic sensation to part or all of protective layer 120, but when the haptic
sensation is provided to all of protective layer 120, Burrough suggests
bending of protective layer 120 rather than translational displacement of the
protective layer 120 in its entirety.
Burrough further discloses “[i]t should also be noted that multiple
haptic actuators can be driven in unison for stronger haptic effects or at
different times to provide sensations at particular locations of surface 126.”
Burrough ¶ 50. Thus, Burrough further describes driving multiple haptic
actuators in unison. But again, this still suggests bending of protective layer
120 rather than translational displacement of the protective layer 120 in its
entirety.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22–28, 33, 41, 50,
and 51, which depend from claim 21.
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
6
Independent claim 34 recites the same key limitation. We, therefore,
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 35, 36, 39, 40, and 49, which
depend from claim 34.
Independent claim 42 recites the same key limitation. We, therefore,
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 42. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 43, 44, and 46, which depend
from claim 42.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 30–32 and 38 over Burrough and
Takenaka
The Examiner does not find Takenaka cures the deficiency of
Burrough. See Final Act. 13–15; see also Ans. 2–11.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
30–32 and 38.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–28, 30–36, 38–44, 46,
and 49–51 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–28, 33-
36, 39–44,
46, and 49–
51
102(b) Burrough 21–28, 33-
36, 39–44,
46, 49–51
30–32 and
38
103(a) Burrough,
Takenaka
30–32, 38
Appeal 2018-001609
Application 13/818,225
7
Overall
Outcome
21–28, 30–
36, 38–44,
46, 49–51
REVERSED