Ellen Letendre

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

2019000657 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
15/057,933 03/01/2016 Ellen Letendre P2015-11-13 (290110.649) 4136
70336 7590 05/27/2020
Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
SIMPSON, LIXI CHOW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ELLEN LETENDRE

Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, 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. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as DISH
Technologies L.L.C., formerly named EchoStar Technologies L.L.C.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant’s invention generally relates to systems and methods for
indicating a message or condition to a user through the use of haptic
feedback effects on a remote control device. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing haptic feedback to a user of a haptic
feedback remote control device, comprising:

providing, by a receiving device, a user interface having a
plurality of selectable elements for display on a presentation device;

receiving, by the receiving device, an electronic command
issued from the haptic feedback remote control device, the electronic
command indicating a selection of one of the plurality of selectable
elements;

performing, by the receiving device, an action corresponding
with the indicated selection;

transmitting, by the receiving device, a haptic feedback
command to the haptic feedback remote control device in response to
the performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection;
and

causing, by the receiving device, a haptic feedback device
within the haptic feedback remote control device, to be activated
based on the haptic feedback command, to provide a haptic feedback
effect to a user of the haptic feedback remote control device, the
haptic feedback effect indicating confirmation of the performed action
corresponding with the indicated selection.

Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

3
REJECTIONS

Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Levesque et al. (US 2016/0147333 A1;
published May 26, 2016) (“Levesque”).
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Levesque and Cobbett et al. (US
2016/0135695 A1; published May 19, 2016 (“Cobbett”).2

ANALYSIS

Claims 1–7, 9–16, and 18–20.
Appellant argues Levesque does not disclose “transmitting, by the
received device, a haptic feedback command to the haptic feedback remote
control device in response to the performing the action corresponding with
the indicated selection” and “the haptic feedback effect indicating
confirmation of the performed action corresponding with the indicated
selection,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically, Appellant
argues that “[t]he haptic signal sent to the haptic output device in Levesque
’333 is not in response to performing the action corresponding with the
indicated selection.” Id. According to Appellant, Levesque does not
disclose sending a haptic signal in response to decreasing the size of the
photograph, but instead sending in response to deformation or other signals
from the touch sensor. Id. at 9. Appellant argues that mapping the

2 In the Answer, the Examiner clarified that claim 17 should have been
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth for claim
8. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

4
deformation signal to functions associated with the user interface is not
actually performing the action and is not confirmation of the performed
action. Reply Br. 3. Appellant also argues that paragraphs 49–53 of
Levesque do not disclose a separate receiving device and remote control
device. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Levesque describes several
embodiments, including those depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 6. See, e.g.,
Levesque ¶¶ 8–13. The Examiner identifies computing systems 236 and 604
of Figures 2 and 6, respectively, as disclosing the claimed “receiving
device,” and computing devices 201 and 602 of Figures 2 and 6,
respectively, as disclosing the claimed “haptic feedback remote control
device.” Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 4.
The Examiner further cites to paragraphs 49–53 of Levesque, which
describe the haptic effect determination module 126 of Figure 1. Ans. 4.
Paragraph 49 states, in part:
The haptic effect determination module 126 comprises code
that selects one or more haptic effects to output. In some
embodiments, the haptic effect determination module 126 may
comprise code that determines a haptic effect to output based on
a signal from the deformation sensor 134. For example,
deformations (e.g., bending the computing device 101 in
varying amounts) may be mapped to functions (e.g., move to
the next page in a virtual book, move several pages in the
virtual book, or close the virtual book) associated with a user
interface. Haptic effect determination module 126 may select
different haptic effects based on the function.

Levesque ¶ 49 (emphasis added). Although the haptic effect determination
module is described with respect to Figure 1, Levesque describes that it may
also be part of other embodiments, including those of Figure 2 and Figure 6.
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

5
See Levesque ¶ 58 (“computing system 236 also comprises . . . haptic effect
determination module 226 . . . [which] may be configured to function
similarly to the . . . haptic effect determination module 126 . . . depicted in
FIG. 1”); ¶ 62 (“computing device 201 may comprise . . . haptic effect
determination module 226 . . .); ¶ 91 (“computing device 602 (e.g., the
computing device 201 of FIG. 2”)).
The Examiner also relies on paragraphs 92 and 93 of Levesque, which
describe Figure 6, to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Ans. 4–5.
Paragraph 92 describes, in part:
The user may interact with the one or more user interface
controls on the computing device 602 to manipulate the
photograph or otherwise interact with the photo album
application. For example, the user may tap on an area of a
touch-sensitive surface on the computing device 602 to select
an associated photo album widget, e.g., a button configured to
change the size of the virtual photograph. The computer device
602 may output an associated haptic effect, for example a
vibration to notify the user that the button has been selected. . .
. In some embodiments, the computing device 602 may output
an associated haptic effect. For example, if the photograph is at
its maximum size, the computing device 602 may output a
haptic effect configured to resist against the user further
stretching the computing device 602.

Levesque ¶ 92 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Levesque “clearly
shows that the display presents multiple input options for the user to select
from, and once the user provides an input on the remote control device, a
haptic feedback effect is transmitted (i.e., by the receiving device according
to Fig. 2) to the remote control device to let [the] user know that the
selection has been made.” Ans. 4.
Paragraph 93 describes, in part:
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

6
In some embodiments, the computing system 604 may output a
webpage via a web browser. The web page may comprise one
or more links. A user may interact with the computing device
602 (e.g., the touch-sensitive surface) to select a link. In some
embodiments, the computing device 602 may output a haptic
effect associated with the interaction.

Levesque ¶ 93 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that “[the haptic
effect associated with the interaction] guide[s] the user as to the location of
the links on the webpage without the user having to look at the display of
the computing system (i.e., the receiving device).” Ans. 4.
Levesque describes that a function comprises a task associated with an
application executing on the computing device, such as, for example,
manipulating a virtual object, selecting a program option or setting, inputting
data, sending data or receiving data. Levesque ¶ 18. Levesque describes
that the function to perform is determined, in part, on user interaction and
deformation. Id.; Abstract. As described above, Levesque teaches that
deformations may be mapped to functions, and the corresponding haptic
effects are selected based upon that function. Levesque ¶ 49. Levesque also
teaches that interactions (e.g., selecting a button to cause some action,
selecting a link to cause some action) may be associated with haptic effects.
Levesque ¶¶ 92–93.3 Given that functions and interactions are associated

3 Other embodiments in Levesque also provide further examples of a “haptic
effect associated with the user interaction.” For example, paragraph 78
describes

In some embodiments, the computing device 404 may output a
haptic effect associated with the user interaction. For example,
upon the user pressing a button to cause the user’s virtual
character to fire a virtual weapon, the computing device 404
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

7
with haptic effects, and haptic effects are selected based upon the function,
we are not persuaded that Levesque’s haptic effects are “not in response to
performing the action corresponding with the indicated selection.” Appeal
Br. 8. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Levesque’s haptic effects
may indicate confirmation of the performed action corresponding with the
indicated selection because it lets the user know the selection has been made
without the user having to look at the display. See Ans. 4; e.g., Levesque
¶¶ 20–21.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and sustain the rejection. Appellant does not
separately argue independent claims 10, 18, and 20, which recite
commensurate limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–16,
and 19. Appeal Br. 9–10. Therefore, for the same reasons we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

may output a haptic effect configured to simulate a gun shot.
This may confirm to the user that the user’s virtual weapon has
been fired and further enhance the realism of the video game.

Paragraph 21 describes

In the illustrated embodiment, the computing device is also
configured to output a haptic effect associated with the user
interaction and/or the function. For example, upon the user
tapping the uppercase letter “A” on the virtual keyboard, the
computing device may output a haptic effect comprising a click
sensation. This may confirm to the user that the computing
device has received the user’s input, without the user having to
look at the touch-screen display.
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

8
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1, and
recites “causing the haptic feedback remote control device to automatically
enter the haptic feedback mode by the receiving device sending a haptic
feedback mode entry command to the haptic feedback remote control
device.” The Examiner relies on Cobbett to teach or suggest this limitation.
Final Act. 8 (citing Cobbett Fig. 111, ¶ 196). Specifically, the Examiner
finds:
The features “automatically enter the haptic feedback mode”
and “a haptic feedback mode entry command” have be [sic]
interpreted based on the broadest reasonable interpretation. The
input device of Cobbett (i.e., the haptic feedback remote
control) “performing only receive signal and generate the haptic
feedback” has been interpreted to mean “automatically enter the
haptic feedback mode”, and “the setting of the input device to
perform only to receive signal and generate the haptic
feedback” has been interpreted to mean “a haptic feedback
mode entry command sent by the receiving device”.

Ans. 5–6.
Appellant argues there is only a “haptic feedback command,” not a
“haptic feedback mode entry command” sent to the input device of Cobbett.
Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “input device 1000 of Cobbett does
not enter into ‘a haptic feedback mode.’” Id.; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Paragraph 196 of
Cobbett states:
The input device 1000 may further include haptic feedback
features (not shown), such as a vibration motor, to
communicate various alerts to the user. The input device 1000
may be configured for providing different types of haptic
feedbacks, such as a steady vibration, pulsed vibration, etc. The
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

9
input device 1000 may receive signals from the external device
1002 to generate specific haptic feedback. In one embodiment,
the resolution of when to generate haptic feedback and which
haptic feedback to generate is performed by the external device
1002, such that the input device needs only to receive the signal
and generate the haptic feedback. The external device 1002
may utilize user settings for providing specific haptic feedback
in the event of a specific occurrence, e.g., an incoming phone
call, an emergency alert, an activity milestone reached, or other
event. Haptic feedback may be used in connection with the
various applications and functions described below.

Appellant’s Specification describes:
Further, the haptic feedback remote 100 may include a haptic
feedback enable/disable element (which may be, for example, a
button 112, a sliding toggle, touch tap or any other such user
interface element) which puts the haptic feedback remote 100
into a haptic feedback mode. That is, the haptic feedback
remote 100 may operate in a “normal” or non-haptic feedback
mode, or alternatively, the haptic feedback remote 100 may be
put into a haptic feedback mode through use of a haptic
feedback mode button 112. Additionally, the haptic feedback
remote 100 may be put into a haptic feedback mode
automatically under certain conditions. For example, if the
receiving device 118 receives user input from the haptic
feedback remote 100 which indicate user confusion (e.g.,
multiple invalid commands, or the like), then the receiving
device 118 may cause the haptic feedback remote 100 to
automatically enter the haptic feedback mode, in which case
haptic feedback may be provided to the user via the haptic
feedback remote 100.

Spec. 7 (emphasis added). “[W]hen an applicant uses different terms in a
claim it is permissible to infer that he intended his choice of different terms
to reflect a differentiation in meaning of those terms.” See Innova/Pure
Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

10
Cir. 2004). We do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained,
how Cobbett teaches or suggests a “haptic feedback mode entry command”
that causes the haptic feedback remote control device to automatically enter
a “haptic feedback mode,” as opposed to a “haptic feedback command.”
Rather, Cobbett simply teaches that an input device may receive signals
from an external device to generate haptic feedback (e.g., a “haptic feedback
command”), similar to the disclosure in Levesque.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and, therefore, do not sustain
the rejection.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and recites “wherein the receiving
device is configured to transmit a haptic feedback mode entry command to
the haptic feedback remote control device, and the haptic feedback remote
control device is configured to enter a haptic feedback mode upon receipt of
the haptic feedback mode entry command, wherein in the haptic feedback
mode the haptic feedback remote control device is operable to provide haptic
feedback effects.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has provided no analysis or
reasoning in rejecting claim 17, other than referring to the analysis of claim
7. Id. at 12. However, Appellant argues that claim 17 recites substantive
limitations that claim 7 does not recite. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner states claim 17 should have been
grouped with claim 8, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Levesque
and Cobbett. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the combination of Levesque and
Appeal 2019-000657
Application 15/057,933

11
Cobbett teach or suggest the limitations in claim 17 in the same manner as
discussed for claim 8. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 17 for the same reasons as set forth above for dependent claim 8.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–16,
18–20
102 Levesque  1–7, 9–16,
18–20

8, 17 103 Levesque, Cobbett 8, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–16,
18–20
8, 17

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 IN PART