Ex Parte Olsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13110910 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/110,910 05/18/2011 Mark S. Olsson SEEK 09-190-201 4441
13235 7590 02/27/2017
Steven P Tietsiwnrth
EXAMINER
3527 Talbot St. KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
San Diego, CA 92106
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
tietsworth@cox.net
steven. tietsworth @ seescan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK S. OLSSON, MICHAEL J. MARTIN,
RAY MEREWETHER, LONI CANEPA,
AUSTIN RUTLEDGE, ALEXANDER L. WARREN,
AMOS H. JESSUP, and GEORGE L. JEMMOTT
Appeal 2016-000973
Application 13/110,910
Technology Center 2600
Before: JEFFREY S. SMITH, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1—12, 14—26, and 28—50. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 14. Claims 13 and 27 stand
objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim. Final Act. 12. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000973
Application 13/110,910
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, their invention relates to manual user
interface devices with magnetic sensing functionality. Spec. 12. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A user interface device, comprising:
a spring mechanism;
an actuator element coupled to the spring mechanism;
a base element coupled to the spring mechanism;
a processing element; and
a motion sensing apparatus comprising one or more
magnets and one or more multiaxis magnetic sensor elements
for sensing magnetic fields in multiple-axes at a compact point
in space, wherein the motion sensing apparatus is coupled
between the actuator element and the base element to
magnetically sense a motion of the actuator element and
provide, to the processing element, one or more motion signals
corresponding to the sensed motion.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—11, 14—26, and 28—50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Obermeyer and
Shahoian. Final Act. 2.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Obermeyer, Shahoian, and Hollow.
Final Act. 12.
REFERENCES
Hollow
Shahoian
Obermeyer
US 4,584,510 Apr. 22, 1986
US 6,184,868 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
US 7,474,296 B2 Jan. 6, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-000973
Application 13/110,910
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Obermeyer does not teach or suggest a base
element coupled to a spring mechanism, as recited by claim 1, because, in
Obermeyer Figure 11D, base 3 is several layers and elements below spring
10. App. Br. 3^4; Reply Br. 1—2. We are not persuaded by this argument
because the Examiner finds that spring 10 in Obermeyer Figures 11B and
11D touches screw 21 and screw 21 touches base 3, and Appellants do not
dispute that finding. Ans. 14, citing Obermeyer Figs. 11B and 11D; Reply
Br. 1—2. The Examiner further finds that, because spring 10 touches screw
21 and screw 21 touches base 3, spring 10 is coupled to base 3. Ans. 14.
Appellants do not address this finding. Reply Br. 1—2. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Obermeyer teaches or
suggest a base element coupled to a spring mechanism, as recited by claim 1.
Appellants argue that Shahoian does not teach or suggest “one or
more multiaxis magnetic sensor elements for sensing magnetic fields in
multiple axes at a compact point in space,” as recited by claim 1 because
Shahoian merely discloses multiple sensors (e.g., sensors 126) that each
sense a single degree of freedom. App. Br. 4—6; Reply Br. 3^4. We are not
persuaded by this argument, because, as the Examiner finds Shahoian
discloses using a single compound sensor for multiple degrees of freedom in
place of single-degree-of-freedom sensors. Ans. 15, citing Shahoian 25:60—
64.
3
Appeal 2016-000973
Application 13/110,910
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that, in the Final Action, the
Examiner provides no rationale for rejecting claim 40. App. Br. 7—8. As the
Answer notes, the Final Action, however, states that the analysis for claim
40 is the same as for claim 35. Final Act. 12; Ans. 17. In the Reply Brief,
Appellants challenge that applicability of the analysis of claim 35 to claim
40, but provide no good cause for waiting until the Reply Brief to do so,
thereby depriving us of a response by the Examiner. Reply 8—9.
Accordingly, we will not consider that challenge. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that Obermeyer does not teach
or suggest having a single die sensor mounted to a keyed substrate, as
recited by claim 24. App. Br. 12—13. The Examiner finds that Obermeyer’s
disclosure of MEMs discloses such a sensor. Ans. 19-20. Appellants argue,
however, that Obermeyer’s sensor is not the recited multi-axis magnetic
sensor. Reply Br. 13—14. We are not persuaded by this argument because it
is not directed to the Examiner’s rejection. In particular, the Examiner does
not rely on Obermeyer for the recited multi-axis magnetic sensor. The
Examiner relies on Shahoian for teaching or suggesting that sensor, as set
forth in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1—claim 24’s base claim. Ans.
15, citing Shahoian 25:60—64.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1—12, 14—26, and
28-50.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—12, 14—26, and 28—50.
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
4