Ex Parte Levesque et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201813830125 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018) 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. 13/830,125 03/14/2013 Vincent Levesque IMM410 (51851/846347) 9828 7590 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER KIYABU, KARIN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2018 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): 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 VINCENT LEVESQUE, DAVID M. BIRNBAUM, JUAN MANUEL CRUZ-HERNANDEZ, and AMAYA WEDDLE Appeal 2016-008191 Application 13/830,125 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, STACY B. MARGOLIES, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Immersion Corporation (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2016-008191 Application 13/830,125 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “devices featuring surface-based haptic effects that simulate one or more features in a touch area” (Spec. ^ 3). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system comprising: a sensor configured to detect an interaction with a touch surface and transmit a sensor signal associated with the interaction; a processor in communication with the sensor, the processor configured to: determine a mode of operation, wherein the mode of operation is associated with one of a plurality of controlled systems; control at least one feature of the one of a plurality of controlled systems based on the mode of operation and the interaction; determine a simulated texture associated with the mode of operation, the simulated texture configured to identify the controlled system; output a haptic signal associated with the simulated texture; and a haptic output device in communication with the processor and coupled to the touch surface, the haptic output device configured to receive the haptic signal and simulate the texture on the touch surface. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cruz-Hemandez (WO 2010/105001 Al; pub. Sept. 16, 2010) and Schaaf (US 2005/0122317 Al; pub. June 9, 2005). 2 Appeal 2016-008191 Application 13/830,125 The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cruz-Hemandez, Schaaf, and Grant (US 2005/0134562 Al; pub. June 23, 2005). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Schaaf teaches or suggests “the simulated texture configured to identify the controlled system,” as claimed (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 2). Appellants assert Schaaf “includes no discussion whatsoever of outputting a texture” (App. Br. 16). Appellants then assert Schaaf does not disclose a haptic effect that “is configured to ‘identify the controlled system’” (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants argue the independent claims together in their Appeal Brief, with claim 1 as representative of the pending independent claims (App. Br. 15, 17)./ The Examiner finds Cruz-Hemandez discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1, including a processor configured to determine a simulated texture associated with the mode of operation and output a haptic signal associated with the simulated texture (Ans. 3-4; Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner relies on Schaaf for teaching or suggesting the mode of operation is associated with one of a plurality of controlled systems, a processor configured to control at least one feature of the one of the plurality of controlled systems, and the simulated texture is configured to identify the controlled system, as claimed (Ans. 4-5; Final Act. 5-6). We find Appellants are not arguing the references for what they were cited in the Final Rejection. The Examiner cites Cruz-Hemandez as teaching, for example, the claim limitations of a processor configured to 3 Appeal 2016-008191 Application 13/830,125 “determine a mode of operation” and “determine a simulated texture,” and Schaaf as teaching “the mode of operation is associated with one of a plurality of controlled systems” and the simulated texture “configured to identify the controlled system” (Final Act. 4-5). In the passages cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4-5), Cruz-Hemandez discloses that “a computing device featuring a touch surface with surface-based haptic effects can output different surface-based haptic effects based on sequences of inputs” (Cruz- Hemandez, 14:6-9 (emphasis added)). The passages cited by the Examiner also state that a surface-based haptic effect can be “a higher friction level” (Cruz-Hemandez, 14:6-9). Cruz-Hemandez explains that “a simulated feature includes a texture simulated by varying the coefficient of friction of the surface in a controlled manner” (Cruz-Hemandez, 15:5-7). See also Cruz-Hemandez, 2:13-17 (“Embodiments of the present invention include devices featuring surface-based haptic effects that simulate one or more features in a touch area. Features may include, but are not limited to, changes in texture . . . .”), 15:13-18 (“For instance, patterns of differing friction or patterns of vibration may be provided to mimic the feeling of textures . . . .”). Appellants’ arguments directed to Schaaf do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. We also note Appellants do not address the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 4-5), with which we agree, based on paragraphs 70, 71, 72, and 75 of Schaaf, which discuss controlling a feature of a control system based on a mode of operation (see, e.g., Schaaf]} 71 (“touching or pressing operating element 45 in Fig. 7, a mask ... for operating an air 4 Appeal 2016-008191 Application 13/830,125 conditioner is called up”). See also Schaaf ^ 73 (“touching or pressing operating element 41 in Fig 7 ... for operating a navigation system is called up”)). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, Schaaf does teach or suggest determining “a mode of operation, wherein the mode of operation is associated with one of a plurality of controlled systems” and controlling “at least one feature of the one of a plurality of controlled systems based on the mode of operation and the interaction.” For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 19, argued together, and dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 15, and 16, which Appellants do not argue separately. With respect to dependent claims 7, 8, 17, and 18, Appellants contend Grant does not cure the deficiencies of Cruz- Hemandez and Schaaf (App. Br. 17). As we find no deficiencies, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 17, and 18. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation