Ex Parte Aono

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13392867 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/392,867 02/27/2012 Tomotake Aono 005000-K00020 8058
78198 7590 02/27/2017
StiiHehaker & Rraokett PP EXAMINER
8255 Greensboro Drive YANG, NAN-YING
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,8671
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3—9. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Kyocera Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,867
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An input apparatus comprising:
a touch sensor configured to detect a touch input;
a piezoelectric element mounted on the touch sensor, the
piezoelectric element having one end mounted on the touch
sensor and the other end opened; and
a control unit configured to detect a pressure load on a
touch face of the touch sensor based on an output signal of the
piezoelectric element and, when the pressure load detected
satisfies a standard to provide a tactile sensation, to drive the
piezoelectric element such that the tactile sensation is provided
to an object pressing the touch face.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected under the judicially-created
doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
and 4 of co-pending Application No. 13/392,874 and Nishimura (US. Pub.
No. 2006/0192657; published Aug. 31, 2006). (Final Act. 4—8).
Claims 1 and 3—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tsuji (JP11-212725A; published Aug. 6, 1999) and
Nishimura. (Final Act. 9—12).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner improperly combine Tsuji and Nishimura?
2
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,867
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—12), the findings and the reasons set forth
in the Examiner’s Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and the findings and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—7). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings
and argument for emphasis as follows.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tsuji andNishimura
Appellant contends the Examiner improperly combined Tsuji and
Nishimura in rejecting claims 1 and 3—9. (App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 2—7).
Specifically, Appellant argues modifying Tsuji with Nishimura “would
render Tsuji unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” because the
combination “would eliminate the ability of Tsuji to detect a pressure load”
(App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)), the combination “enhance[s] flex or
bending” of Tsuji’s inflexible touch panel {id. at 6 (emphasis omitted)), and
the combination “leaves Tsuji without the capability of sensing touch” {id. at
7 (emphasis omitted)). Additionally, Appellant argues Nishimura “teaches
away from Tsuji” because Tsuji teaches its “touch panel 10T . . . does not
deform” when pressed while Nishimura “configure[es] [its] touch panel 11
to enhance flex or bending” when pressed. {Id. (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tsuji
teaches a touch panel with a mounted piezoelectric element, and Tsuji’s
3
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,867
piezoelectric element both detects pressure applied to the touch panel and
vibrates in response to the detected pressure. (Final Act. 9 (citing Tsuji
Abstract, Fig. 15); Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds, and we
agree, Nishimura teaches a piezoelectric element mounted to a touch panel
with one end of the piezoelectric element open. (Final Act. 10 (citing
Nishimura Fig. 3); Ans. 5). Based on the configuration taught by
Nishimura, the Examiner “modifies] the design of the [device] of Tsuji”
such that “the piezoelectric element ‘30’ of Tsuji.. . [has] one end mounted
on the touch panel ‘11’ and the other end open.” (Final Act. 2—3, 10; Ans.
5).
Appellant’s arguments that the combination of Tsuji and Nishimura
“would render Tsuji unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App. Br. 5—7
(emphasis omitted)) inappropriately requires the bodily incorporation of
Nishimura into Tsuji. In particular, Appellant’s arguments that the
combination “would eliminate the ability of Tsuji to detect a pressure load”
(App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); see Reply By. 6—7) and “leaves Tsuji
without the capability of sensing touch” (App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted))
requires the replacement of Tsuji’s piezoelectric element, which detects
touch pressure, with Nishimura’s piezoelectric element, which does not
detect touch pressure. However, the Examiner’s combination does not
incorporate Nishimura’s piezoelectric element into Tsuji’s device; rather, the
Examiner modifies the configuration of Tsuji’s piezoelectric element by
mounting Tsuji’s piezoelectric element to Tsuji’s touch panel with an open
end, as taught by Nishimura (Final Act. 2—3, 10; Ans. 5). In other words, the
Examiner’s combination does not replace Tsuji’s piezoelectric element and,
4
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,867
accordingly, maintains the ability to detect touch pressure through Tsuji’s
piezoelectric element.
Further, Appellant’s argument that the combination causes Tsuji’s
inflexible touch panel to flex “because Nishimura is configured to enhance
flex or bending of [its] touch panel” (App. Br. 6 (citing Tsuji ]f 135;
Nishimura 136) (emphasis omitted)), requires the substitution of Tsuji’s
inflexible touch panel with Nishimura’s flexible touch panel. As Appellant
points out, Tsuji’s “touch panel 10T itself has the strength [to] not deform”
when pressed. (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner’s
combination does not incorporate Nishimura’s flexible touch panel; rather,
the Examiner’s combination modifies the configuration of Tsuji’s
piezoelectric element on Tsuji’s touch panel. (Final Act. 2—3, 10; Ans. 5).
In other words, the Examiner’s combination does not replace Tsuji’s
inflexible touch panel and, accordingly, the combination maintains the
ability to detect pressure on Tsuji’s inflexible touch panel using Tsuji’s
piezoelectric element.
Additionally, Appellant’s argument that Nishimura “teaches away
from Tsuji” because “Tsuji is configured to minimize deformation or flexure
of [touch] panel 10T, and Nishimura is configured to enhance deformation
or flexure of [touch] panel 11” (App. Br. 6—7 (emphasis omitted)) does not
address the modification on which the Examiner relies, namely, modifying
Tsuji’s piezoelectric element to be open on one end (Final Act. 2—3, 10; Ans.
5). That is, the Examiner’s modification of the piezoelectric element’s
configuration does not concern touch panel flex and Nishimura’s discussion
of flexible touch panels does not relate to, and, therefore, does not teach
away from, the Examiner’s proposed modification of piezoelectric
5
Appeal 2016-005410
Application 13/392,867
configurations. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown where the references
actually “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the Examiner’s
proposed combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Tsuji and Nishimura in rejecting claims 1 and 3—9.
Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
We observe that claims 1 and 3 were provisionally rejected on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1
and 4 of Application No. 13/392,874 and Nishimura. (Final Act. 4—8.)
Application No. 13/392,874 issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,436,312 B2 on
September 6, 2016. The rejection is, therefore, no longer provisional.
Because Appellant does not challenge the merits of the double patenting
rejection (App. Br. 4), we summarily sustain it.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 for non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3—9 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuji and Nishimura is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6