10937931 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 2011)

Ex Parte Jasso et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 12, 2011

10937931 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 12, 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. 10/937,931 09/10/2004 Alexander Jasso IMM210 3627 34300 7590 01/13/2011 PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 WEST FOURTH STREET WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101 EXAMINER RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2011 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 ALEXANDER JASSO and DAVID W. BAILEY ____________ Appeal 2009-010645 Application 10/937,931 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for 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 2009-010645 Application 10/937,931 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Alexander Jasso and David W. Bailey (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-6, 9-15, 23-32, 35-41, and 49-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kobayashi (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2003/0080939 A1, pub. May 1, 2003) and claims 16-22 and 42-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Kobayashi and “The HELI-CAL Flexure” reference cited by Appellants in the IDS submitted August 5, 2005. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Invention The claims on appeal relate to a user interface having a haptic feedback. Spec. 1, para [0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus comprising: a first element having a first brake surface; a second element having a second brake surface configured to contact the first brake surface; at least one actuator configured to exert a force on the first element or the second element; and a flexure coupled to the apparatus to provide a degree of rotational flexibility to a manipulandum when the at least one actuator exerts the force. Appeal 2009-010645 Application 10/937,931 3 DISCUSSION Issue The determinative issue in this appeal is: Whether Kobayashi discloses a flexure coupled to an apparatus to provide a degree of rotational flexibility to a manipulandum when an actuator exerts a force as recited in independent claims 1 and 27. Analysis We agree with Appellants’ contention and analysis that neither the leaf spring 10b nor the elastic member 14 (nor the two elements working in combination) anticipates the claim limitation of “a flexure coupled to the apparatus to provide a degree of rotational flexibility to a manipulandum when the at least one actuator exerts the force” as recited in both independent claims 1 and 27. As argued by Appellants, the leaf spring 10b does not provide a rotational degree of freedom. Instead, the leaf spring 10b is disclosed to act to restrict movement of the lever 4 by allowing a greater braking force to be exerted when the magnetic plate contacts the electromagnetic coil. See App. Br. 5 and Kobayashi, para. [0034]. Further, the purpose of elastic member 14 is to act as a centering spring. Kobayashi, para. [0039]. While, as Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 5), the elastic member 14 may act upon lever 4 in a rotation degree of freedom, the elastic member does not provide a rotational flexibility to the lever when an actuator exerts a force as set forth in both independent claims. As Appellants further contend (Reply Br. 5), even if the Kobayashi lever 4 shown in Figure 4 rotates when the actuator is activated, the lever’s rotation is within the degrees of rotation provided by its ball-and-socket joint and not Appeal 2009-010645 Application 10/937,931 4 some other degree of rotational flexibility provided by the leaf spring 10b as the Examiner surmised in the Answer (see Ans. 3 and 8-9). Accordingly, as the Examiner has compared Kobayashi to claims 1 and 27, Kobayashi fails to anticipate “a flexure coupled to the apparatus to provide a degree of rotational flexibility to the manipulandum when the at least one actuator exerts the force” as set forth in claims 1 and 27. The Examiner fails to remedy what is lacking in Kobayashi with the HELI-CAL Flexure reference cited by Appellants. CONCLUSION Kobayashi does not disclose a flexure coupled to an apparatus to provide a degree of rotational flexibility to a manipulandum when an actuator exerts a force as recited in independent claims 1 and 27. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 9-32, and 35-54 is reversed. REVERSED Klh PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851) KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1001 WEST FOURTH STREET WINSTON-SALEM NC 27101