Ex Parte Grant et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201714047300 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/047,300 10/07/2013 Danny A. Grant 043508-0422400 4302 34300 7590 10/02/2017 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2017 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): eofficeaction @ appcoll.com kts_imm_docketing @ kilpatricktownsend. com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DANNY A. GRANT and DANIEL GREGORY PARKER Appeal 2017-006512 Application 14/047,300 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4—15, and 18—25. Claims 2, 3, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Amend. 2, 4 (July 17, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2017-006512 Application 14/047,300 Invention Appellant1 discloses a user input element, which may be part of a haptic feedback interface system that creates an electrostatic haptic effect by applying a voltage difference to first and second electrodes to change the attractive force between the two electrodes and thereby change the friction force between contacting surface of two parts. Spec. 146, Abstract. Illustrative Claim {key limitations emphasized) 1. A user input element, comprising: a first part comprising a first electrode defining a first capacitive surface; a second part comprising a second electrode defining a second capacitive surface configured to be movable relative to the first capacitive surface, the second part in contact with the first part at an interface; and an insulator positioned in between the first capacitive surface and the second capacitive surface so that an electrostatic haptic effect is generated when the second capacitive surface is moved relative to the first capacitive surface from a first position to a second position, wherein a voltage difference is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode by a voltage generator to generate the first capacitive surface and the second capacitive surface and to change a friction force between the first part and the second part at the interface and generate the electrostatic haptic effect. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Immersion Corporation, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Appeal 2017-006512 Application 14/047,300 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6—15, and 18—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huska et al. (US 2011/0227872 Al; Sept. 22, 2011). Final Act. 3—7. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huska and Karamath et al. (US 2012/0268386 Al; published Oct. 25, 2012). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), the Examiner finds Huska discloses a touchscreen that uses a haptic actuator operably coupled to a capacitive force sensor to provide tactile feedback and discloses wherein a voltage difference is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode by a voltage generator to change a friction force between the first part and the second part at the interface and generate the electrostatic haptic effect. Final Act. 3 (citing Huska 47, 50, 51, 76, and 77). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Huska’s spring 344 serves as an interface between two parts of Huska’s touchscreen such that, when the user presses the touchscreen such that the spring oscillates, the force friction between the two parts of the touchscreen, at the spring, changes from static friction to kinetic friction. Ans. 9—10. The Examiner finds that the changing velocity of the spring as it compresses and expands also produces changing air drag or friction. Id. at 11. Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Huska’s two planes move vertically with respect to each other, not laterally. App. Br. 11. Thus, Appellant contends the two parts do not have a changing friction force between them at an interface—that any friction is between each part and the 3 Appeal 2017-006512 Application 14/047,300 spring, not between the two parts themselves. Id. at 11—12; see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant further contends that interpreting the changing friction force recitation as encompassing changing air drag of Huska’s spring is unreasonable. Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The difference between static and kinetic friction forces in a spring, and the changes in air drag caused by changes in the spring’s velocity, are negligible at best in Huska, which neither mitigates nor leverages such changes in force. Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that Huska merely uses electrostatic forces to attract a pair of conductive planes (which are not configured in Huska to move laterally with respect to each other) rather than to change a friction force between first and second parts. See App. Br. 12 (citing Huska 160). The changes in frictional force in Huska are, at most, a de minimus by-product of Huska creating an attractive force between the two, parallel conductive planes, rather than the intended effect and source of the claimed electrostatic haptic effect. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1, and claims 4, 6—15, and 18—25, which contain similar recitations. The Examiner’s findings do not show that Karamath cures the noted deficiency of Huska. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5. 4 Appeal 2017-006512 Application 14/047,300 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—15, and 18— 25. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation