Ex Parte Kleen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2011

10927812 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 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.
10/927,812 08/27/2004 Martin Kleen 2003P09746US 2500
7590 05/11/2011
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
SIM, YONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2011 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 MARTIN KLEEN
____________

Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 8-14, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a touch-sensitive user interface screen
for generating signals that are haptically perceptible by the user. (Abstract).
Claim 8, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
8. A screen having a touch-sensitive user interface for inputting
a command by touching the user interface and generating a
command signal if the degree of touch is sufficient, comprising:
an electrically actuatable mechanism assigned to the user
interface for generating a first haptically perceptible signal at
the position touched on the user interface if a command signal
has been generated after touching the user interface by a user,
wherein
the mechanism comprises a locally actuatable piezoelectric
layer, wherein
the haptically perceptible signal includes any of one or a
plurality of local mechanical impulses, or a local mechanical
vibration generated by a deformation of the piezoelectric layer,
wherein
the electrically actuatable mechanism is adapted to generate a
second haptically perceptible signal before a degree of touch at
a local area of the screen occurs indicating to the user that the
local area of the screen has been activated for inputting a
command, and wherein
the first and the second haptic signal comprise any of different
frequencies, or different mechanical impulses.
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Diederiks (US 2005/0030292 A1, Feb. 10, 2005).
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

3
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs (App. Br. filed Jun. 9, 2008; Reply Br. filed Oct. 15, 2008) and the
Answer (mailed Aug. 20, 2008) for the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
The pivotal issues presented by Appellant’s arguments are as follows:
Does Diederiks disclose
a second haptically perceptible signal before a degree of touch
at a local area of the screen occurs indicating to the user that the
local area of the screen has been activated for inputting a
command, and wherein
[a] first and the second haptic signal comprise any of different
frequencies, or different mechanical impulses
as recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 3-7)?
Does Diederiks disclose that “a duration and/or an intensity of the first
haptic signal are varied during a continuing touching of the user interface
depending on the information content of the input command” as recited in
claim 11 (App. Br. 11)?
Does Diederiks disclose representation of “a surface area in the form
of a slide- or controller-type control element movable along a straight line”
that “is limited [during movement] at least in the direction of its movement
in a haptically perceptible manner by the deformation of the actuated
piezoelectric layer” as recited in claim 13 (App. Br. 11), or “is limited
circumferentially during its movement in a haptically perceptible manner by
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

4
the deformation of the actuated piezoelectric layer” as recited in claim 14
(App. Br. 12)?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Diederiks discloses a display screen having a relief generator to
produce protrusions 103, 104 (Figs. 1-3) or depressions at locations on the
screen that are currently relevant, e.g., sensitive to touch input (¶¶ [0007],
[0021]).
2. Diederiks discloses that protrusions 103, 104 tactilely enhance a
graphical representation of a button, enabling the user to feel the location of
the button, as distinct from its environment (¶ [0011]).
3. Diederiks discloses that the relief generator dynamically
changes the relief to provide tactile guidance as required by a current
application (¶ [0004]).
4. Diederiks discloses that the protrusions 103, 104 are easily
sensed by the user’s finger sliding across the display screen (¶ [0007]).
5. Diederiks discloses that a user may interact with a system by
touching or pressing the screen to generate electrical signals (¶ [0006]).
6. Diederiks discloses that when a user presses a graphical button
with sufficient force the initial protrusion forming the button may be
maintained or increased, then suddenly removed or converted into a
depression 104´ (Fig. 4) giving clear tactile feedback that the button has
been pushed, resembling the feeling of operating a hardware push-button (¶¶
[0012], [0024]).
7. Diederiks discloses that the buttons 103, 104 are only actuated
when a force exceeding a certain threshold is exerted (¶ [0021]).
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

5
8. Diederiks discloses a slider button 501 that a user can push
along a slider control 502 (Fig. 5; ¶¶ [0012], [0026]).
9. Diederiks discloses a slider control 502 that is an oblong
depressed area in the piezoelectric layer 202 (Fig. 5; ¶ [0026]).
10. Diederiks discloses that when a user simultaneously touches a
side of the slider button 501 and the slider control 502, the touching causes
the slider button to move along the slider control in the direction opposite to
the touched side of the slider button (¶ [0026]).
11. Diederiks discloses that when the slider button 501 reaches the
end of the slider control 502 the relief generator communicates this back to
the user by not moving the slider button protrusion any further (¶ [0026]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Though understanding
the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the
written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that
are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “These elements must be arranged as in the claim
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

6
under review, but this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). “There must be no
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genetech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
1991).

ANALYSIS
Claim 8
Appellant contends that Diederiks does not disclose the claimed
second haptically perceptible signal because Diederiks does not disclose a
signal that occurs before a degree of touch occurs but while the user is
touching the screen (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4-6), and because Diederiks
does not disclose that the signal indicates to a user that the local area of the
screen has been activated for input of a command (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br.
5-6). Appellant further contends that Diederiks does not disclose that the
first and second haptic signals comprise different frequencies or different
mechanical impulses (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3, 5-6).
The Examiner has articulated and explained findings that the claim
reads on Diederiks. Furthermore, the Examiner’s explanations reconcile the
differences in the vocabulary used between the claim and Diederiks, see
Bond, 910 F.2d at 832, and explains how Diederiks would be understood by
one skilled in the art, see Scripps, 927 F.2d at 1576. We find the Examiner’s
findings and explanations to be reasonable and adopt them as our own.
For further emphasis, it is our understanding that the Examiner has
construed “haptically perceptible” as requiring a signal that can be perceived
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

7
by a user’s sense of touch (Ans. 9), see Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. The
Examiner also has construed the phrase “before a degree of touch” to read
on before any touch at all (Ans. 10), see id. We agree. Nothing in the claim
requires that the user actually perceive the “second haptically perceptible
signal” at the moment it occurs or that the user be touching the affected area
of the display at the moment the signal occurs. Furthermore, nothing in the
claim precludes the “second haptically perceptible signal” from persisting to
be perceived by the user’s sense of touch at a later time. See SuperGuide,
358 F.3d at 875.
Accordingly, we find that Diederiks discloses both a first haptically
perceptible signal (FF 5-7) and a second haptically perceptible signal (FF 1-
5). The second haptically perceptible signal occurs when the display screen
forms the protrusions or depressions at areas that are currently sensitive to
touch input (FF 1, 3, 5), which would be understood by one skilled in the art
as indicating to a user that the raised or depressed area has been activated for
inputting a command (FF 1, 3, 5, 6). We also find that Diederiks discloses
that the first haptically perceptible signal is a mechanical impulse that gives
the user the sense of pushing a hardware push-button (FF 6), while the
second haptically perceptible signal would be understood by one skilled in
the art as comprising a mechanical impulse that forms the protrusions or
depressions (FF 1, 3), so that the first and second haptically perceptible
signals are different mechanical impulses.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. Appellant’s statements
regarding the patentability of claims 9, 10, and 12 (App. Br. 10-11) merely
recite the limitations added by these claims and refer, without further
argument, to the combined limitations of the claims from which they
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

8
depend. “A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not
be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii). Therefore, the patentability of claims 9, 10, and 12
has only been argued based on the arguments made for claim 8, from which
they ultimately depend. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9,
10, and 12 for the same reasons as for claim 8.

Claim 11
Appellant contends that nothing in the portion of Diederiks cited by
the Examiner (Ans. 5-6) “has any relation to ‘varying’ the haptic signal”
(App. Br. 11). Appellant further contends that “[p]roviding a feeling that a
button is pressed is not the same as sending a signal to confirm that a
command signal has been generated” (id.).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. As found by the
Examiner (Ans. 5-6, 12-13), increasing the resistance of a protrusion when it
is pressed with sufficient force, then decreasing or removing the protrusion
(FF 6), varies the haptic signal during a continued touching, see Morris, 127
F.3d at 1054; see also SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. Furthermore, one
skilled in the art would understand Diederiks’s simulating the action of a
hardware pushbutton (FF 6) as a confirmation that pressing the protrusion
has generated a command signal (FF 1, 3, 5, 6), see Scripps, 927 F.2d at
1576. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 11.

Claims 13 and 14
Appellant contends that the portions of Diederiks cited by the
Examiner do not disclose limiting the movement of a slider control in a
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

9
haptically perceptible manner as required by claim 13 (App. Br. 11), and do
not disclose limiting the movement of a slider control circumferentially
during movement in a haptically perceptible manner as required by claim 14
(App. Br. 12). We disagree. The Examiner has provided reasonable
articulated findings and explanations (Ans. 6-7, 13-15), which we adopt as
our own.
For emphasis, we note that Diederiks’ slider protrusion (slide-type
control element) is limited during movement to a single direction of travel
by the placement of the user’s finger on the slider protrusion (FF 8, 10) that
is haptically perceptible by virtue of the same placement of the user’s finger.
The movement is further limited by the haptically perceptible shape of the
oblong depressed area, which is a deformation of the actuated piezoelectric
layer that forms the slider control (FF 9). Such a depressed area would be
understood by one skilled in the art as circumferentially limiting the slider
protrusion to movement in a straight line parallel to the length of the oblong
depression. Additionally, Diederiks discloses that the extent of slider travel
is limited in a haptically perceptible manner (FF 11). Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claim 13 and 14.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-14 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-010820
Application 10/927,812

10

babc