Ex Parte Poupyrev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

13092572 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/092,572 04/22/2011 Ivan POUPYREV
77754 7590 06/27/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046-2472
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.
DISN/0062.02 (049054) 6852
EXAMINER
HARRIS, DOROTHY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
'UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IV AN POUPYREV, OLIVIER BAU, ALI ISRAR, and
CHRIS HARRISON
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of
claims 1-22, and 24--29. Claim 23 has been canceled. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We note that although the Claim Appendix indicates that claim 29 is
canceled, the Examiner's Answer indicates that claim 29 is pending and "is
new" (Ans. 2).
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
A. THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "touch
surfaces, and, in particular, to electrovibration for touch surfaces" (Spec.
iT 2).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for generating a signal, the method comprising:
detecting a varying impedance value of user in contact
with a device relative to a ground;
adjusting a signal based on the varying impedance value; and
causing the signal to be coupled to the user such that, as the
signal is adjusted,
the signal is adapted to generate substantially the same
tactile sensation in at least one digit that slides on an
insulation surface of the device.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hotelling et al.
Chang
Makinen et al.
R yhanen et al.
US 2006/0026536 Al
US 2006/0197592 Al
US 2009/0079550 Al
US 2011/0279250 Al
Feb.2,2006
Sept. 7, 2006
Mar. 26, 2009
Nov. 17, 2011
Kaczmarek et al., "Polarity Effect in Electrovibration for Tactile
Display" IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 10,
pages 2047-2054, October 2006.
Butler et al., (2008). Object appreciation through haptic interaction.
In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology?
Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 downloaded from
2
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
http://www. ascilite. org.au/ conferences/melboume08/procs/bulter-m. pdf,
pages 133-144.
Claims 1-22, and 24--29 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-10, and 12-32 of copending Application No. 13/092,564 (Fin. Act.
28).
Claims 1-20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ryhanen, and Kaczmarek.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryhanen, Kaczmarek, and Butler.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryhanen, Kaczmarek, and Hotelling.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryhanen, Kaczmarek, and Makinen.
Claims 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryhanen, Kaczmarek, Makinen, and Chang.
II. ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Ryhanen, and Kaczmarek teaches or would have suggested
"adjusting a signal based on the varying impedance value" and "causing the
signal to be coupled to the user such that, as the signal is adjusted, the signal
is adapted to generate substantially the same tactile sensation in at least one
digit that slides and an insulation surface" (claim 1, emphasis added).
3
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
III. ANALYSIS
Provisional Double Patenting
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 1-22 and 24--29 on the
ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-10, and 12-32 of copending Application No.
13/092,564 (Fin. Act. 28). Because copending Application 13/092,564 was
abandoned on October 28, 2015, we dismiss the Examiner's provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection as moot.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend "Ryhanen never even acknowledges that the skin
impedance Zc has any affect on how the stimulus is perceived by the user
but rather only teaches using skin impedance as one of a variety of input
parameters" (App. Br. 9). Appellants then contend Kaczmarek discloses
"the measure at which the user begins to feel any force from the feedback
system, not the voltage needed to discern a particular tactile sensation"
(App. Br. 10). According to Appellants, "even assuming one of ordinary
skill ... would modify the voltage of the stimulus signal based on
impedance," the modification "at most teaches making sure the user can feel
a force but does not teach maintaining the same tactile sensation" (App. Br.
13-14). Accordingly, Appellants contend "Kazmarek discusses the voltage
threshold needed to feel a force, not the adjustments that need to maintain
the same tactile sensation," and thus "neither Kaczmarek nor Ryhanen
recognize a problem with maintaining the same tactile sensation when an
impedance value of the user varies" (App. Br. 14).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of
evidence supports Appellants' position. Even though the Examiner finds
4
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
that "Ryhanen clearly teaches using skin impedance as an input parameter to
adjust the EMMTS (Electrically Modulated Moving Touch Stimulus)" (Ans.
2) and that "Kaczmarek clearly provides a relationship of a felt magnitude F
in response to a magnitude of voltage V and impedance contribution of the
skin in contact with the plastic insulator" (Ans. 3), the Examiner has not
sufficiently identified where in the cited portions of Ryhanen and/or
Kaczmarek there is a teaching or suggestion of "adjusting a signal based on
the varying impedance value" and "causing the signal to be coupled to the
user such that, as the signal is adjusted, the signal is adapted to generate
substantially the same tactile sensation" (claim 1, emphasis added).
That is, although we agree with the Examiner's reliance on Ryhanen
for disclosing and suggesting "adjusting a signal based on the varying
impedance value" (Ans. 8), and the Examiner's reliance on Kaczmarek for
disclosing and suggesting generating a "tactile sensation in at least one digit
that slides and an insulation surface" (Ans. 2), we are unconvinced that the
cited portions of R yhanen and Kaczmarek teach or at least suggest
generating the same tactile sensation as the signal is adjusted, as required in
independent claim 1.
Therefore, on this record, we do not affirm the Examiner's § l 03
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claim 17 (similarly reciting
the contest limitations and standing therewith), and claims 2-16, 18-20, 24,
and 25 depending respectively therefrom, over Ryhanen and Kaczmarek.
The Examiner makes no finding as to whether Butler, Hotelling,
Makinen, and Chang make up for the above-discussed deficiencies of
Ryhanen and Kaczmarek. Thus, we also reverse the rejections of: claim 21
over R yhanen and Kaczmarek, in further view of Butler; claim 22 over
Ryhanen and Kaczmarek, in further view of Hotelling; claim 26 over
5
Appeal2015-001895
Application 13/092,572
Ryhanen and Kaczmarek, in further view of Makinen; and claims 27-29
over Ryhanen and Kaczmarek, in further view of Makinen and Chang.
IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22, and 24--29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6