Ex Parte Golko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2018

13090612 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

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.
13/090,612 04/20/2011 Albert J. Golko P10569US1 2830
7590 01/16/201862579
APPLE INC.
c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
410 Seventeenth Street
Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
MILLISER, THERON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2018 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 ALBERT J. GOLKO and ERIC N. NYLAND
Appeal 2017-002206
Application 13/090,612
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, JEFFREY R. SNAY,
and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California is identified as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002206
Application 13/090,612
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A vibrator, comprising:
a vibrator motor having
a shaft with first and second ends;
a body member formed around at least a portion of the
shaft such that the first and second ends of the shaft are
exposed; and
one or more piezoelectric elements mounted to the body
member, wherein the shaft rotates when the one or more
piezoelectric elements is driven by a control signal;
a weight attached to the shaft so that the vibrator vibrates
when the shaft is rotated;
a vibrator motor mounting bracket having:
a first support member that defines a first hole that
receives and supports the first end of the shaft;
a second support member that defines a second
hole that receives and supports the second end of the
shaft; and
a base structure extending between the first
support member and the second support member and
configured to mount the vibrator to an electronic device,
wherein the base structure includes an opening that
accommodates the weight when the weight is rotating,
wherein the weight is attached to the shaft between the
first support member and the second support member.
2
Appeal 2017-002206
Application 13/090,612
Appellants (see generally Appeal Brief) request review of the
following prior art rejections from the Examiner’s Final Office Action:
I. Claims 1—4, 9-15, and 18—20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable overUmehara (US 2008/0278013 Al, published November
13, 2008), Tamai (US 6,140,741, issued October 31, 2000), and Homg (US
2002/0190589 Al, published December 19, 2002).
II. Claims 5—7, 16, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable overUmehara, Tamai, Homg, and Chen (US 2008/0178427
Al, published July 31, 2008).
III. Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Umehara, Tamai, Homg, and Semenik (US 6,133,657, issued October 17,
2000).
IV. Claims 21—23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable overUmehara, Tamai, Homg, and Yamaguchi (US 5,373,207,
issued December 13, 1994).
OPINION
The Prior Art Rejections2
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we REVERSE the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following for emphasis.
2 Appellants rely on the same arguments in addressing independent claims 1,
9, and 18 and all dependent claims. See generally App. Br. Both Appellants
and the Examiner recognize that all independent claims require the disputed
mounting stmcture for the vibrating motor. App. Br. 12; see generally Final
Act. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-002206
Application 13/090,612
Independent claim 1 is directed to a vibrator for an electronic device
that requires a vibrator motor mounting bracket having first and second
support members and a base structure extending between the first and
second support members to support a motor shaft, wherein the base structure
includes an opening that accommodates a rotatable weight attached to the
motor shaft and located between the first support member and the second
support member.3
We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the
rejection of independent claim 1. Final Act. 2—5. The Examiner’s rejection
is premised on modifying the holder of Figures 1, 5 of Umehara by
extending it to encompass the weights of Umehara as taught by Homg’s
Figure 5. See Ans. 5.
Appellants contend that, absent impermissible hindsight, one skilled
in the art would not arrive at a vibrator motor mounting bracket having the
claimed support members and base structure from the combined teachings of
Umehara and Homg because one skilled in the art would have no reason or
motivation to redesign Umehara’s holder and Homg’s motor housing to
somehow result in a mounting bracket with an opening in a base stmcture
that accommodates Homg’s weight. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellants. While the Examiner reasons that the
vibrator motor stmcture resulting from the combined teachings of the cited
3 A discussion of the reference to Tamai is unnecessary for disposition of
this appeal because the reference was principally cited to address the
claimed piezoelectric elements and not the claimed motor mounting
stmcture. Final Act. 4. Further, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings related to Tamai as presented in the Final Action. See generally
Appeal Brief.
4
Appeal 2017-002206
Application 13/090,612
art would result in better stability and up ward/down ward vibration effects by
extending the holder to encompass the weights (Ans. 5; Homg 118), the
Examiner has not provided an adequate technical explanation why one
skilled in the art would have found the vibrator motor mounting structure
design of Homg suitable for Umehara’s device absent impermissible
hindsight. Moreover, Umehara already addresses the stability and
upward/downward vibration effects with the disclosed design (Umehara 1
21). Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how or why one skilled in the art would have combined the
teachings of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—23 are reversed.
REVERSED
5