Ex Parte Martin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

09798872 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

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.
09/798,872 03/01/2001 Kenneth M. Martin IMM102A 1605
34300 7590 09/29/2010
PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851)
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101
EXAMINER
HJERPE, RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2010 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 KENNETH M. MARTIN, ADAM C. BRAUN,
and DAVID F. MOORE
____________

Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, 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 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 17, 18, 20, 21, 51-55, and 60-62. Claims 11, 13-15, and 56-59
are objected to as being allowable, but dependent from rejected base claims.
Claims 5, 7-10, 12, 16, 19, and 22-50 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed October 27, 2006), the Answer
(mailed December 20, 2006) and the Reply Brief (filed February 20, 2007)
for the respective details. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the adjusting of force output from a
force feedback device based on user contact with the device. Motion of a
manipulandum of the device by a user is sensed and a degree of user contact
with the manipulandum is determined by examining the motion. The
magnitude of the force output is adjusted in accordance with the degree of
user contact and the force output can be stopped entirely if no user contact
with the manipulandum is detected. (See generally Spec. 6:7-22).

Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a sensor signal that relates to a motion of a manipulandum
in at least one degree of freedom;
determining a degree of user contact with the manipulandum
associated with the received sensor signal; and
outputting a force having a magnitude in the at least one degree of
freedom, the force magnitude being associated with the determined degree
of user contact.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art reference:
Leung US 6,388,655 B1 May 14, 2002
(filed Nov. 8, 1999)

Claims 1-4, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Leung.
Claims 51-55 and 60-62 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leung.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
determining that Leung discloses:
a) the outputting of force signals corresponding to the magnitude
of the force applied by a user to a user-manipulable device (a
“manipulandum”), and
Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

4
b) structure that corresponds to a “force-feed actuator” which is
coupled to the manipulandum.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 6, 17, 18, and 20
Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention that, in contrast to the
invention set forth in independent claim 1, Leung has no disclosure of any
mechanism that outputs a force, with the magnitude of the force being
associated with a determined degree of user contact with a manipulandum.
According to Appellants (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4-5), the forces discussed
by Leung, while related to a user’s manipulation of a touch pad, are merely
passive forces which a person might feel when, e.g., touching or running a
finger along any surface.
We do not agree with Appellants. Aside from the fact that claim 1 is a
method claim with no limitations directed to any structure for outputting a
force, we find that Leung indeed discloses force outputting structure in the
form of strain gauges 70 which output force signals in response to
movement of user-manipulable movable member 52 (Figs. 7-8, col. 8, ll. 44-
62, col. 9, ll. 14-29). The force signals from the strain gauges are fed to a
microcontroller which computes the location, magnitude, and direction of
the control force (col. 9, ll. 38-50). Further, to whatever extent Leung may
be considered as not disclosing the active outputting of forces “to the user”
as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 4), no such requirement appears in the
rejected claims.
Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

5
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Examiner did not err
in concluding that all of the claimed limitations are present in the disclosure
of Leung. Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as dependent claims 2-4, 6, 17, 18, and 20 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

Independent claim 21
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, based on
Leung, of independent apparatus claim 21. In asserting patentability over
Leung, Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 5) emphasize the recitation in
claim 21 of a “force-feedback actuator” which is coupled to the
manipulandum. We find ample evidence, however, in Leung to support the
Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 7, 11, and 12) that Leung discloses structure
that corresponds to such feature as claimed.
As described by Leung, the movement of the contact surface of the
input device in response to the force applied by a user’s finger provides
tactile and kinesthetic force feedback to the user (col. 5, l. 66-col. 7, l. 20).
Leung discloses the input device 50 as including a user-manipulable member
52, a force transfer member 60, and a support base 80 (Figs. 7-8; col. 8, ll.
48-61). As previously discussed, Leung’s force transfer member 60 includes
strain gauges 70, which function to output force signals in response to user
contact with the contact surface of the input device (col. 9, ll. 14-29 and 38-
50). As such, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Leung’s
input device 50, which includes the force transfer member 60 with the strain
gauge force sensor transducers 70, corresponds to the “force-feedback
actuator” as claimed. It is also noteworthy that Appellants’ arguments
Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

6
recognize that a “force-feedback actuator may also be a transducer.” (App.
Br. 4).

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on Leung, of claims 51-
55 and 60-62, which are directed to processor-executable code for
performing the previously discussed force outputting functions, is sustained
as well. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5-6) rely on the
arguments asserted previously against the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of independent claims 1 and 21, which arguments we have found to be
unpersuasive for all of the previously discussed reasons.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21 for
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 51-55 and 60-62 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 17, 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 51-55 and 60-62 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-004918
Application 09/798,872

7
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)(v) (2009).

AFFIRMED

KIS

PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851)
KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
1001 WEST FOURTH STREET
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101