Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 4, 2020

2021000350 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
15/879,956 01/25/2018 Romain A. Teil P19581USC1 1058
62579 7590 12/04/2020
APPLE INC./BROWNSTEIN
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRAN M.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2855
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2020 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):
patentdocket@bhfs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROMAIN A. TEIL
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956
Technology Center 2800
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, BETH Z. SHAW, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mobile electronic device with squeeze
detection. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A smart phone, comprising:
a housing, comprising:
an internal wall surface forming an interior perimeter of
the housing;
a first indentation defined by the internal wall surface
wherein the first indentation has a first middle portion at which
the first indentation is thinnest; and
a second indentation defined by the internal wall surface
wherein the second indentation has a second middle portion at
which the second indentation is thinnest, the first and second
indentations disposed on opposite sides of the interior perimeter
of the housing;
a display coupled to the housing;
a first group of strain gauges positioned in the first
indentation at the first middle portion;
a second group of strain gauges positioned in the second
indentation at the second middle portion; and
a processing unit communicably coupled to the first and
second groups of strain gauges that is operable to receive data
from the first and second groups of strain gauges and determine
that force is exerted on the housing.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lazarus US 5,687,462 Nov. 18, 1997
Lockery US 6,172,309 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
Momeyer US 8,432,368 B2 Apr. 30, 2013

Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Momeyer and of Lockery. Final Act. 5–13.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Momeyer, Lockery, and Lazarus. Final Act. 13–14.

Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–19 103 Momeyer, Lockery
20 103 Momeyer, Lockery,
Lazurus

OPINION
At the outset, we note that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
motivation in the references is not necessary to support a conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415–16 (2007); In
re Ethicon, 844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Supreme Court has
instructed that “a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”
(KSR, 550 U.S. at 417), and apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to
obviousness (id. at 415).
Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach “a housing”
including “an internal wall surface,” “a first indentation defined by the
internal wall surface” that “has a first middle portion at which the first
indentation is thinnest,” and “a first group of strain gauges positioned in the
first indentation at the first middle portion” as required by independent claim
1. Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 2–10.
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

4
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Momeyer and Lockery for collectively teaching or suggesting the elements
recited in claim 1. First, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Momeyer at least suggests a first indentation defined by the internal wall
surface wherein the first indentation has a first middle portion at which the
first indentation is thinnest. See Ans. 3–6.
Figure 2B of Momeyer is reproduced below.

Figure 2B illustrates a cross-section of an aspect configuration of a
force sensitive input strips 115 attached to case 104 of a mobile device.
Momeyer, 8:26–28. Momeyer, in Figure 2B, shows piezo strip 210 may be
mounted on case 104 in a variety of configurations. Momeyer, Fig. 2B,
8:38–40. In one configuration, piezo strip 210 may be applied to depression
144 formed or milled into the case surface. See Momeyer 8:43–46.
Although Figure 2B shows the piezo strip 210 mounted on the exterior
surface of the case 104, Momeyer also contemplates that piezo strip 210
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

5
“may alternatively be attached to an interior surface of the case 104.” Id. at
8:58–60.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant provides no evidence to
support the arguments that “the only purpose for the depression 144 in
Momeyer is to make the piezo strip 210 flush with the external surface of the
case,” that “putting the depression 144 on the inside of the case would
frustrate the stated purpose of Momeyer using the depressions 144,” and that
“putting the depression 144 on the inside of the case would be pointless.”
Ans. 6 (citing Appeal Br. 7); see also Reply Br. 4.
Rather, as the Examiner explains, “if the depression 144 can be
formed or milled onto an external surface of the device case to support the
piezo strip 210 on the exterior of the case, it is obvious that the depression
can also be formed or milled onto an internal surface of the case to
accommodate the attachment of piezo strip on the interior of the case”
because “providing additional accommodation space for the piezo strip 210
on the interior of the device case would result in a compact and less
expensive device.” Ans. 5–6. As the Examiner explains, although Appellant
argues that milling the depression into the interior surface of the case is
“pointless” (Appeal Br. 7), this argument is without support because
Momeyer contemplates that the piezo strip 210 sensor may be “attached to
an interior surface of the case 104.” Such an addition would have been
within ordinarily skilled artisans’ knowledge when accounting for the
inferences and creative steps that these artisans would have employed. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
As the Examiner explains, and we agree, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would be motivated by Momeyer’s teachings to form or mill a
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

6
depression directly onto the interior case surface to provide an interior
accommodation space for the piezo strip inside the case so that the piezo
strip 210, when attached, does not crowd or interfere with the internal
electronics inside the case. Ans. 4. By providing an additional space in the
interior of the case (i.e., an interior depression, like the depression 144,
formed on the interior case surface), the sensor would use the optimized
attachment area formed by the interior depression and avoid taking up the
interior space for the electronics and circuitry that are present in the device.
Id. at 5. Thus, adding the interior depression on the interior case surface
would be an obvious and reasonable modification because the interior
depression would provide additional space for attaching the piezo strip(s) in
the interior the device casing without making significant and costly changes
to create more space inside the case. Id. For example, increasing the
dimensions of the case would make the device bigger, cumbersome, and
expensive. Id.
Moreover, such a combination is an obvious predictable variation of
known elements. “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement
a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the proposed combination
would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art,” the proposed modification would have been well within the
purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418).
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

7
Appellant also argues that Momeyer only teaches filling depression
144 with a single piezo strip, although Appellant acknowledges that
Momeyer teaches the use of multiple piezo strips 210. Appeal Br. 8.
However, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, Momeyer teaches that a “higher
resolution implementation may implement multiple sensors on each of the
long sides of the mobile device case, such as illustrated in FIG. 10B so that
applied forces and taps by each fingers of one hand may be individually
resolved.” Momeyer, 25:4–11. Moreover, Momeyer, teaches piezo strip 210
with multiple contact pairs 214a-h to enable the strip “to generate multiple
input signals which may vary depending upon the location of applied force.”
Id. at 21:60–66. Momeyer teaches multiple “force sensitive membranes (or
similar sensors) may be configured in a manner that increases the sensitivity
or position resolution of the sensors.” Momeyer 21:52–56. As the Examiner
explains, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to insert the
four piezo strips 210a-d in the depression 144, so as to reduce the production
costs and to simplify the manufacturing process.” Ans. 9. “By modifying the
depression 144 to accommodate both sensor arrangements, the same device
case can be used with either sensor arrangements. Therefore, dimensioning
the depression 144 to fit the four piezo strip arrangement (see Fig. 10B)
would be reasonable and obvious.” Ans. 9.
We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant does not provide
sufficient evidence to support the assertions that the surface of the case
would not be flush in such an arrangement. Id. Appellant also does not
provide evidence to support the attorney arguments that “[p]lacing the
multiple piezo strips 210 all at a thinnest portion where there is one principal
point of strain would not allow the multiple piezo strips 210 to sense force at
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

8
different points, or would actually reduce accuracy for all of the piezo strips
210 that are not located at that one principal point of strain.” Appeal Br. 9.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417.
For these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action
and Answer, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Momeyer
and Lockery teaches “a first group of strain gauges positioned in the first
indentation at the first middle portion.” Final Act. 5. Therefore, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims
2–19, which were not argued separately with particularity. See Appeal
Br. 10–11.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 20
over Momeyer, Lockery, and Lazarus. Because this rejection is not argued
separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection
for the reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Momeyer and of Lockery.
We affirm the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Momeyer, Lockery, and Lazarus.
Appeal 2021-000350
Application 15/879,956

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Momeyer, Lockery 1–19
20 103 Momeyer,
Lockery, Lazurus
20
Overall
Outcome
1-20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED