Ex Parte Levin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2015

10923202 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2015)

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.
10/923,202 08/20/2004 Michael D. Levin IMM202 4860
34300 7590 04/17/2015
PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851)
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
EXAMINER
SIM, YONG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. LEVIN
____________

Appeal 2013-001260
Application 10/923,2021
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, CATHERINE SHIANG and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6–14, and 16–32. Claims 5 and 15 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 The real party in interest is Immersion Corporation. Br. 1.

Appeal 2013-001260
Application 10/923,202
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is related to providing haptic effects to a user.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A device comprising:
an actuator configured to output a haptic effect to a
manipulandum;
a non-volatile memory configured to store a pre-programmed
haptic effect profile, the pre-programmed haptic effect profile
comprising:
a plurality of haptic parameters describing a plurality of
vibrotactile haptic effects,
a plurality of sensor parameters associated with the plurality of
vibrotactile haptic effects, and
a processor in communication with the actuator and the non-
volatile memory, the processor configured to:
receive a sensor signal indicating a position of the
manipulandum;
identify a vibrotactile haptic effect in the pre-programmed
haptic effect profile based at least in part on the received sensor
signal, the plurality of haptic parameters and the plurality of sensor
parameters; and
output an actuator signal configured to cause the actuator to
output the vibrotactile haptic effect.

Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1– 4, 6– 14, and 16 –32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Shahoian (US Publication 2002/0033795 A1 published March
21, 2002) in view of Hardwick (US Publication 2004/0169483 A1 published
September 2, 2004).

2
Appeal 2013-001260
Application 10/923,202
ANALYSIS

The Examiner finds that Shahoian teaches the claim limitations except
the phrase “haptic effect profiles.” Ans. 6–7. The Examiner finds that
Hardwick teaches this limitation. Ans. 7 (citing paras. 6–13).
Appellant argues that neither Shahoian nor Hardwick teach the
limitation “a pre-programmed haptic effect profile, the pre-programmed
haptic effect profile comprising: a plurality of haptic parameters describing a
plurality of vibrotactile haptic effects, a plurality of sensor parameters
associated with the plurality of vibrotactile haptic effects.” Br. 6–7.
According to Appellant, Shahoian simply discloses that the processor can
generate actuator signals to cause haptic effects and “does not imply haptic
effect parameters and sensor signals [are] stored in a non-volatile memory.”
Id. Appellant argues that Hardwick just shows profiles, it does not disclose
the claimed profile. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that Shahoian teaches, in paragraphs
66, 69, and Figure 4, that haptic effect parameters and sensor signals are
stored, or pre-programmed, in non-volatile memory:
Shahoian teaches in Para 0066; “The microprocessor 110 can process
inputted sensor signals to determine appropriate output actuator
signals by following stored instructions.” The appropriate output
actuator signals, which are haptic effects, are determined by stored
instructions, which take the inputted sensor signals into consideration.
Thus, the stored instructions must inherently comprise both haptic
effect parameters and sensor parameters in order to determine the
appropriate output actuator signals. The portion of instruction that
relates [to] the sensor signals is the sensor signal parameter portion
and the portion of instruction that determines the appropriate output
actuator signals is the haptic effect parameters. Since the instructions
are stored in the non-volatile memory, as indicated in the previous
Office Action (Para 0069), the sensor signal parameters and haptic
3
Appeal 2013-001260
Application 10/923,202
effect parameters are stored, in other words, pre-programmed, in the
nonvolatile memory. (emphasis added).
Ans. 17, 6–7.

We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings above. One of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that, since the instructions for the
output actuator signals are stored in the non-volatile memory, it necessarily
follows that the stored instructions comprise both haptic effect parameters
and sensor parameters for the output actuator, as recited in the claims. Ans.
17. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
stored haptic effect parameters and sensor parameters would be considered
pre-programmed in the non-volatile memory.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that that neither
Shahoian nor Hardwick teach the limitation “a pre-programmed haptic effect
profile, the pre-programmed haptic effect profile comprising: a plurality of
haptic parameters describing a plurality of vibrotactile haptic effects, a
plurality of sensor parameters associated with the plurality of vibrotactile
haptic effects.” Br. 7. According to Appellant, while Hardwick discloses
that different users may configure profiles according to their preferences,
there is no disclosure or suggestion that a pre-programmed haptic profile
may include both haptic effects and sensor parameters associated with the
plurality of vibrotactile haptic effects. Id. Appellant argues that, because
there is no such suggestion in Hardwick, the teaching of profiles, without
more, does not suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 7–8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Shahoian teaches the
limitations except “haptic effect profiles” and that Hardwick teaches user-
specific haptic effect profiles. Ans. 17–18. (citing para. 13). As discussed
above, Shahoian teaches storing, or pre-programming, haptic effects
4
Appeal 2013-001260
Application 10/923,202
parameters and sensor parameters in non-volatile memory. Ans. 17. We
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Hardwick teaches user specific
profiles and that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the user-
specific haptic preferences of Hardwick into the pre-programmed haptic
effect instructions of Shahoian to obtain a device with which a plurality of
users can interact. Ans. 8. (citing Hardwick, para. 13).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
similar independent claims 11, 16, and 24 which are argued together with
claim 1. Dependent claims 2–4, 6–14, and 17–32 are not separately argued
and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4,
6–14, and 16–32 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a) (1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

sl

5