Ex Parte Hardwick

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2011

10482730 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2011)

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.
10/482,730 01/05/2004 Andrew J Hardwick 36-1773 2612
23117 7590 01/31/2011
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
SHERMAN, STEPHEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW J. HARDWICK
____________________

Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,7301
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is British Telecommunications public limited
company.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of adjusting a haptic
interface to suit individual users. Steps include outputting to a touchable
device a plurality of signals to cause simulation of a plurality of patterns,
determining from user response an index number for each respective pattern,
comparing the set of index numbers with a predetermined set of known
index numbers representing a base exponent value, and determining a
mathematical parameter set defining user-specific correction factors to be
applied to haptic signalling outputs (Spec. 1-2).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of calibrating a haptic interface comprising:
outputting to a touchable device a signal to cause simulation of a first
pattern,
determining from user response to said simulation an index number
for the first pattern,
outputting to said touchable device at least one further signal causing
simulation of at least one further pattern and determining from user response
thereto a respective index number for each such further pattern to provide a
set of user-specific index numbers, and
comparing the set of index numbers with a predetermined set of
known index numbers representing a base exponent value to determine a
mathematical parameter set defining user-specific correction factors to be
applied to haptics signaling outputs.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Wies US 6,353,850 B1 Mar. 5, 2002
2
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

S. S. Stevens and Judith Rich Harris “The Scaling of Subjective Roughness
and Smoothness,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp.
489-494 (1962).

Paul Penn et al. “The Haptic Perception of Texture in Virtual Environments:
An Investigation with Two Devices,” Haptic HCI, pp. 25-31 (2000).

Claims 1-10, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stevens in view of Penn.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stevens in view of Penn and Wies.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed April 21, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
October 9, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 14,
2009) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, neither
Stevens nor Penn teaches or suggests either (a) comparing a set of index
numbers with a predetermined set of known index numbers representing
base exponent values, or (b) determining a mathematical parameter set
defining user-specific correction factors to be applied to haptics signaling
outputs, both of which are recited in representative claim 1 (App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 4).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Stevens and Penn teach or fairly suggest
comparing a set of index numbers with a predetermined set of known index
numbers representing base exponent values?
3
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

2. Does the combination of Stevens and Penn teach or fairly suggest
determining a mathematical parameter set defining user-specific correction
factors to be applied to haptics signaling outputs?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Stevens
1. Stevens teaches asking users for their subjective impression of the
roughness of various surfaces, and plotting geometric means of user
responses on a log-log scale (pp. 490-491).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of
these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)
4
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-10, 13, AND 14
Claims 1 and 8 are the pending independent claims. Claim 1 recites
“comparing the set of index numbers with a predetermined set of known
index numbers representing a base exponent value to determine a
mathematical parameter set defining user-specific correction factors to be
applied to haptics signaling outputs.” Claim 8 recites an apparatus for
determining correction factors to be used in adaptation of haptic output
signals, comprising a “processor determining from each said user’s
respective reactions to said outputs a correction factor to be used with each
of said stored display effects to allow the effects when displayed to be
perceived as substantially similar to a previously known perception of the
effects.”
The Examiner finds that Stevens teaches comparing the obtained
index numbers against a set of known index numbers (Ans. 13, citing
Stevens p. 490, second column, ll. 27-40, and p. 494). We disagree with the
Examiner’s finding. We have reviewed Stevens, and find that while Stevens
does teach asking users for their subjective impression of the roughness of
various surfaces, and plotting geometric means of user responses on a log-
log scale (FF 1), Stevens is silent concerning comparing a set of index
numbers (determined from user responses) to a predetermined set of known
index numbers representing a base exponent value. Stevens also contains no
teaching of determining a mathematical parameter set defining user-specific
correction factors to be applied to haptics signaling outputs, as claim 1
requires, or determining [from each user’s respective reactions to haptic
outputs] a correction factor to be used with each of several stored display
5
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

effects, as claim 8 requires. The Examiner does not rely on Penn to teach
these features, and concedes that Penn does not teach correction factors
(Ans. 13).
Thus, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that that the
combination of Stevens and Penn fails to teach or fairly suggest the
invention recited in independent claims 1 and 8. Appellant has established
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10, 13, and 14 under §103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevens in view of Penn, and we will not sustain the
rejections.
CLAIMS 11 AND 12
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Stevens, Penn, and Wies. We have reviewed Wies, and find that it does not
remedy the deficiencies of Stevens and Penn explained supra. Therefore, we
will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 11 and 12, for the same reasons
expressed supra with respect to claim 1-10, 13, and 14.

CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Stevens and Penn does not teach or fairly
suggest comparing a set of index numbers with a predetermined set of
known index numbers representing base exponent values.
2. The combination of Stevens and Penn does not teach or fairly
suggest determining a mathematical parameter set defining user-specific
correction factors to be applied to haptics signaling outputs.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 is reversed.
6
Appeal 2010-001190
Application 10/482,730

REVERSED

ELD

NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
7