Ex Parte Moussette et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

14869829 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/869,829 09/29/2015
61725 7590 02/28/2019
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Apple)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Camille Moussette
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P24595USC2/63266-7469-US 2110
EXAMINER
WANG,JACKK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2019 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CAMILLE MOUSSETTE, GARY I. BUTCHER,
HUGO D. VERWEIJ, and JONATHAN IVE
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITT A II,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-29, all the pending claims in the present application. See
Appeal Br. 6. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Apple Inc., which, according to the Brief, is the
real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The present invention relates to "organiz[ing] a plurality of haptic
output variations into a cohesive semantic framework that uses various
information about the alert condition and triggers, application context, and
other conditions to provide a system of haptic outputs that shares
characteristics between related events." See Spec. ,r 4. 2 Specifically, haptic
outputs corresponding to automatically generated notifications are provided
with greater amplitude than haptic outputs corresponding to a user input.
See Spec. ,r 230 ("According to some embodiments, more intense haptics
( e.g., higher amplitude or longer haptics) are used for unexpected alerts that
are not responsive to user input than those haptics used for feedback that is
in direct response to user inputs.").
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 28, and 29 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized:
1. A processor-implemented method performed on a
computing device that includes one or more input devices, the
method comprising:
detecting a first alert condition on the computing device,
the first alert condition associated with receiving a user input,
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed September 29,
2015 and amendments to the Specification filed October 1, 2015 and June
13, 2016 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed July
24, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed December 18, 2017; ( 4)
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 21, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief("ReplyBr.") filed May 15, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
wherein the user input is an input detected at an input device of
the one or more input devices of the computing device;
responsive to detecting the first alert condition, and in
accordance with the first alert condition being associated with
receiving a user input at an input device of the computing
device, providing a first haptic output on the computing device
having a first amplitude and corresponding to the user input on
the computing device;
after providing the first haptic output, detecting a second
alert condition associated with automatically triggered
notifications in a set of automatically triggered notifications at
the device; and
responsive to detecting the second alert condition, and in
accordance with the second alert condition being associated
with receiving an automatically triggered notification in the set
of predetermined automatically generated notifications,
providing a second haptic output on the computing device
having a second amplitude and corresponding to the
automatically generated notifications in the set of
predetermined automatically generated notifications, wherein
the second amplitude is greater than the first amplitude.
Appeal Br. 26.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Barton
Pasquero et al. ("Pasquero")
Ording et al. ("Ording")
Fleizach et al. ("Fleizach")
Behles et al. ("Behles")
Lindemann et al.
("Lindemann")
Ynots Ind., LLC ("Ynots")
US 2006/0248183 Al
US 2011/0210926 Al
US 2012/0216139 Al
US 2012/0306632 Al
US 2015/0169059 Al
US 2016/0007290 Al
WO 2014/105275 Al
3
Nov. 2, 2006
Sept. 1, 2011
Aug. 23, 2012
Dec. 6, 2012
June 8, 2015
Jan. 7,2016
July 3, 2014
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 20, 21, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ording and Pasquero.
Final Act. 6-11.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ording, Pasquero, and Fleizach.
Id. 12-14.
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ording, Pasquero, and Lindemann.
Id. 14--20.
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ording, Pasquero, Lindemann, and
Behles. Id. 20-22.
Claims 22-24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ording, Pasquero, and Barton. Id. 22-
26.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ording, Pasquero, Barton, and Ynots. Id. 26.
Claims 1--4, 8, 20-24, 26, 28, and 29 stand provisionally rejected on
the ground of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12,
14, 17, 20, and 25 of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/869,825 and claims 1,
2, 24, 28, and 29 stand provisionally rejected over claims 1, 8, 16, and 27 of
U.S. Patent Application No. 14/869,835. Id. 4--5.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
4
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
ISSUE
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ording discloses the
disputed limitations.
ANALYSIS
In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds "Ording
contains a 'base' process of a computer implement [sic] method for use in
conjunction with computing device with a touch screen, wherein the method
provides a haptic feedback output when detecting user interaction with the
touch screen" and "the same device provides various function[ s] . . . such as
... [a] clock application and camera application [that] will automatically
generate notification without user intervention." Ans. 2 (citing Ording
,r,r 104, 330-35, and 1045-51). The Examiner finds "Pasquero contains
known technique of different level and intensity of haptic (tactile) effect
from triggered notification in sequential with higher amplitude . . . that is
applicable to the 'base' process" and concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Ording's base process in view of Pasquero. Ans. 3 (citing
Pasquero ,r 53, Fig. 8).
Appellant argues that Ording does not teach providing haptic outputs
as claimed and "[i]n fact, there is no mention of haptic output in [Ording]."
Reply Br. 10. In addition, Appellant argues, that Ording does not "teach
what haptic effects to generate responsive to receiving a user input or
responsive to detecting an automatically triggered notification." Appeal
Br. 15; see Reply Br. 10.
5
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
We agree with Appellant. Appellant's Specification describes the
claimed "haptic output" as a simulated tap, micro-tap, tap-fade, or buzz
having a consistent vibration. See Spec. ,r,r 162----67. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how Ording' s discussion of a user inputting commands
to "touch screen 112 ... that accepts input from the user based on haptic
and/or tactile contact" teaches a first and second "haptic output," as claimed.
Ans. 2 ("the method provides a haptic feedback output when detecting user
interaction with the touch screen ... " (citing Ording ,r 104)). The
Examiner does not rely on Pasquero to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of claim 1. See Final Action 6-7; Answer 2-3.
Accordingly, on this record, the Examiner has not shown how Ording,
alone or in combination with Pasquero, teaches or suggests "providing a first
haptic output on the computing device having a first amplitude and
corresponding to the user input on the computing device," and "providing a
second haptic output on the computing device having a second amplitude
and corresponding to the automatically generated notifications" within the
meaning of claim 1. 3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive
arguments advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits
of Appellant's other contentions.
3 Our reversal should not be construed as an indication of our belief in the
ultimate allowability of the claim at issue. In the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether to reject claim 1
over a different combination of Ording and Pasquero; perhaps relying on
Pasquero as the primary reference or to teach a haptic output, or both.
Alternatively, another prior art reference might be cited to demonstrate a
haptic output, such as a tap or vibration, employed to confirm both a user
input and to provide an automatically generated notification. See, e.g.,
Fleizach, Figure 1, items 112, 114, 116, and 118.
6
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
Because we are persuaded of Examiner error, we do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1. We also do
not sustain the rejection of independent claims 28 and 29, which are argued
with claim 1 and recite limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1. We
do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-27 for similar reasons.
Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejections
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1--4, 8, 20-24, 26, 28, and
29 on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 4, 5,
11, 12, 14, 17, 20, and 25 of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/869,825. See
Final Act. 4--5. Similarly, the Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1, 2, 24,
28, and 29 on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1, 8, 16, and 27 of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/869,835. Id.
Appellant does not provide arguments disputing these rejections. See
Appeal Br. 12-25. We, therefore, summarily affirm these rejections. See
Hyattv. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008). ("When the appellant
fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board may treat
any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.").
However, we note that a terminal disclaimer can be filed to overcome the
obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 8, 20-24, 26,
28, and 29 on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting.
7
Appeal2018-005771
Application 14/869,829
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8