AONO, Tomotake et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019005138 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
12/405,997 03/17/2009 Tomotake AONO 005000-K00321 4631
78198 7590 12/16/2020
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
EXAMINER
WANG, JACK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_________________

Ex parte TOMOTAKE AONO, KAORU TASHIRO,
and YUTA SHIOKAWA

_________________

Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997
Technology Center 2600
_________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review2, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 16, 19–23, and 27–30 as being

1 We use the word “Appellant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Kyocera Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We consider the Final Office Action issued September 7, 2018 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer issued on April 24, 2019 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed
June 24, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

2
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
Appellant’s Specification is directed to an input apparatus, such as the
screen on a household appliance that accepts pressure input and presents the
operator with the same feeling as if operating a push-button switch. (Spec.
¶¶ 2, 11.)
Appellant’s claim 1 recites:
An input apparatus comprising:
a display unit configured to display an input object;
a touch panel configured to accept a pressure input
applied to the input object by a pressing object;
a load detection unit configured to detect a pressure load
to the touch panel applied by the pressing object;
a vibration unit configured to ultrasonically vibrate the
touch panel; and
a control unit configured to control the vibration unit so
that the vibration unit
refrains from vibrating the touch panel, after
detection of the pressure load, until a first predetermined
criterion about the pressure load for an input operation
to be received at the input object is satisfied, while the
pressure load fails to satisfy the first predetermined
criterion during application of the pressure input,
starts vibrating the touch panel according to a
predetermined vibration frequency and a predetermined
vibration amplitude in response to the pressure load
satisfying the first predetermined criterion during
application of the pressure input, and
stops vibrating the touch panel after a
predetermined vibration time,
so as to provide a feeling of pressing a button to an
operator of the pressing object,
wherein the predetermined vibration frequency, the
predetermined vibration amplitude and the predetermined
vibration time are selected to cause the pressing object to slip
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

3
laterally from a stationary position with respect to the touch
panel when the pressure load is not applied normal to the touch
panel.

(Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).) Thus, claim 1 requires specific control of
the vibration unit to vibrate the touch panel only after a predetermined
criterion about the pressure load has been satisfied.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 16, 19–23, 27, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Colgate3 and Satoh.4 (Final Act. 2–
9.) In addition, the Examiner also rejects claims 28 and 29 as being obvious
over Colgate. (Id. at. 9–10.)
Appellant does not dispute that Colgate teaches an input apparatus
with a display unit, a touch panel, a load detection unit, and a vibration unit,
each configured as recited in claim 1. (See Final Act. 2–3.) The Examiner
finds that although Colgate teaches a control unit configured to control the
vibration unit, Colgate does not teach configuring it to refrain, start, and stop
vibrating the touch panel as recited in claim 1. (See Final Act. 3.)
The Examiner finds, though, that an input apparatus performing this
function would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the teachings of Satoh. (See Final Act. 3.) Like Colgate, Satoh relates to
an input apparatus that creates a sensation when a user presses on it. (See
Satoh Abstract.) The Examiner cites to paragraphs 50–52 and 83–84, as
well as Figures 4 and 8, which are discussed in the cited paragraphs, finding

3 Colgate et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0236450 A1,
published October 11, 2007.
4 Satoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0050059 A1,
published March 9, 2006.
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

4
that Satoh teaches control of the vibration of a touch panel after detecting the
pressure of a load. (See Final Act. 3.) According to the Examiner, Satoh
teaches refrain from vibrating a touch panel after detection of a pressure load
and until a first determined criterion, either pressure or time, about the
pressure load has been reached, in addition to teaching other elements of
control as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. (See id.)
Figure 4 of Satoh is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts a graph showing variation of the amounts of deformation of
the touch panel, which corresponds to operation of a piezoelectric actuator in
the input apparatus. (See Satoh ¶ 49.) Satoh explains:
Before the user has pressed the touch panel portion 2 at timing T401,
the piezoelectric actuator 3 does not curve. When the user presses the
touch panel portion 2 at timing T401, the piezoelectric actuator 3 is
driven to cause the touch panel portion 2 to gradually deform upward.
After a predetermined time period has elapsed, at timing T402, the
touch panel portion 2 maximally rises. Thereafter, the piezoelectric
actuator 3 causes the touch panel portion 2 to deform in the reverse
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

5
direction. At timing T403, the touch panel portion 2 maximally
lowers. Until the panel surface has been pressed, the touch panel
portion 2 is kept at the lowest position.

(Satoh ¶ 50.) Thus, Figure 4, as explained by the cited text, teaches control
wherein a piezoelectric actuator is driven to cause movement from the time,
T401, when the touch panel is pressed.
Appellant disagrees that Satoh teaches control of a vibration unit as
recited in claim 1 because paragraph 50 and Figure 4 teach that when the
user presses the touch panel at time T401, the touch panel portion
immediately starts to deform upward. (See Appeal Br. 5–6.) Appellant
argues that, therefore, Satoh fails to teach or suggest control of a
piezoelectric actuator to refrain from vibrating the touch panel, after
detection of the pressure load, until a first predetermined criterion about the
pressure load is satisfied, as required in claim 1. (See id.)
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not explain how
Figure 4 or paragraph 50 demonstrates a refrain from piezoelectric actuator
activity or how the activity that is taught would result in a refrain from
vibration. Paragraph 52 of Satoh, also referring to Figure 4, states that
“[w]hen period Tl is much longer than period T2, in period Tl, the user does
not almost feel a force sense due to the deformation of the touch panel
portion 2.” Although the user may feel no sensation under these conditions,
paragraph 52 does not indicate, and the Examiner does not explain, how the
control unit refrains from controlling the piezoelectric actuator to cause the
lack of sensation. Instead, Figure 4 demonstrates control to cause the
piezoelectric actuator to act starting immediately at time T01.
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

6
The Examiner also cites to Figure 8 of Satoh, which is reproduced
below.

Figure 8 depicts a timing chart showing the relationship of the drive voltages
of the piezoelectric actuator and the corresponding variation of the timer set
values. (See Satoh ¶ 82.) Satoh explains:
as shown in FIG. 8, when the PUSH timing is detected at timing
T801, the timer 81 outputs the timing signal St to the reference
voltage control portion 82. The timing signal St is held in H level for
a period corresponding to the timer set value. Timings T802, T803,
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

7
and T804 at which the level of the timing signal St is changed to L
correspond to the sense settings “Soft,” “Mid,” and “Hard,”
respectively.

When the level of the timing signal St of the timer 81 is changed to H,
the reference voltage control portion 82 outputs the reference voltage
Vref always corresponding to the same waveform regardless of the
sense setting. Thus, when the count period of the timer 81, namely the
period for which the timing signal St is output, is decreased, the final
output voltage value of the reference voltage Vref decreases. As a
result, the deformation amount of the touch panel portion 2 decreases.
(Satoh ¶¶ 83–84.) The Examiner refers to paragraph 85 of Satoh, which
states that “[i]n the foregoing structure, as the deformation amount of the
touch panel portion 2 decreases, the delay period after the user presses the
touch panel portion 2 until he or she feels a click sense decreases.” (Satoh
¶ 85; see Ans. 3.) Although the text supporting Figure 8 refers to a delay
period, the Examiner does not explain how the action depicted at time 801,
including output of a signal St to the reference voltage control portion,
indicates an action that would render obvious refrain from vibrating a touch
panel until a predetermined criterion is met, as required in claim 1. Thus, we
agree with Appellant that the delay described by Satoh does not teach or
suggest or a refrain as required in claim 1. (See Reply Br. 2.)
The Examiner finds further that “[i]n general, it is well-known in the
art all electronic conditional response devices all have a propagation delay,
prior to output[ting] the signal.” (Ans. 3.) We agree with Appellant that
such delays are not the same as the refrain required in claim 1 under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “refrain.” (See Reply
Br. 2.) Figure 8 of the Specification, to which Appellant cites as support for
control of the vibration unit (see Appeal Br. 2–3), is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

8

The flowchart depicts a feedback loop to the query asking whether the
predetermined criterion has been met, which continues indefinitely until the
criterion has been met. Thus, the flowchart of Figure 8 indicates no action
should be undertaken until the predetermined criterion is met. In light of
this logic, we are not persuaded that a propagation delay is a refrain as
claimed because the refrain indicates no action, whereas a propagation delay
leads to a build-up to propagating a signal. The Examiner provides no other
explanation of how a propagation delay teaches or suggests a refrain from
activity.
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

9
The Examiner finds further that Colgate teaches tactile feedback to
confirm to the user that a button has been pressed. (See Ans. 3–4, citing
Colgate ¶ 124 (“Once the button is found and pressed, a second form of
tactile feedback may be presented as shown in FIGS. 28A, 28B for purposes
of illustration and not limitation. To confirm a button has been pressed the
tactile sensation under the finger changes from a ‘sticky’ sensation, FIG.
28A, to a ‘rough’ sensation, FIG. 28B. A ‘rough’ friction spot SPR on touch
surface 104a is illustrated in FIG. 26B for purposes of illustration where the
elevation of the spot indicates the level of friction felt by the user's
finger.”).) From these findings the Examiner concludes that the claimed
input apparatus would have been obvious. (See Ans. 3–4.)
In the Answer, the Examiner points to a teaching in Colgate regarding
the use of tactile feedback, specifically, changing the sensation under the
finger from “sticky” to “rough” to confirm that a button has been pushed on
a touch panel. (See Ans. 3–4, citing Colgate ¶ 124.) The portion of Colgate
cited by the Examiner does not discuss a refrain from this action until a
predetermined criterion has been met. (See Reply Br. 3.) Accordingly, we
are not persuaded that the combination of any teaching of Colgate and the
teachings of Satoh render the apparatus of Appellant’s claim 1 obvious.
Because the Examiner fails to explain how the combination of Colgate
and Satoh teaches or suggests a refrain from vibrating a touch panel until a
predetermined criterion about the pressure load has been met, we are
persuaded that the combination of Colgate and Satoh do not render the
apparatus of claim 1 obvious.
The claims that depend on claim 1, as well as independent claims 19,
30, and the claims that depend on these claims, are drawn to input
Appeal 2019-005138
Application 12/405,997

10
apparatuses that require refrain from vibrating until a predetermined
criterion about the pressure load has been satisfied. (See Appeal Br. 9–12.)
Thus, for the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that the
apparatuses recited in these claims are rendered obvious by the teachings of
Colgate and Satoh.
Conclusion
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons given, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 16, 19–
23, 27, 30
103 Colgate, Satoh 1–3, 16, 19–
23, 27, 30

28, 29 103 Colgate 28, 29

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 16, 19–
23, 27–30

REVERSED