Ex Parte Senanayake et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13158122 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/158, 122 06/10/2011
101788 7590 09/23/2016
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
11 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rukman Senanayake
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.
SRI/6244 8673
EXAMINER
KHAN, IBRAHIM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
indocket@btlaw.com
corich@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUKMAN SENANAYAKE, GRIT DENKER, PATRICK D.
LINCOLN, ROY D. KORNBLUH, SIERRA J. LINCOLN, RICHARD P.
HEYDT, HARSHA PRAHLAD, DANIEL MCCONNELL AUKES, KARL
D. VANDYK, GEOFFREY A. MANGUS, and JOSEPH S. ECKERLE
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1--46, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SRI International
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to an adaptable input/output device
(Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows.
1. A hardware device for facilitating an interaction between
a computing system and a user, the hardware device comprising:
an interaction surface for supporting the interaction;
a single actuator capable of driving a first region of the
interaction surface; and
a first selective clamping mechanism capable of restricting
movement of one or more second regions of the interaction
surface that are coplanar with the first region and that partly
intersect the first region, the restricting at least partially
counteracting an effect of the actuator on a portion of the one or
more second regions, wherein a displacement of one or more
desired portions of the interaction surface is dynamically
controllable.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-11 and 13--46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Modarres (US 8,390,594 B2, Mar. 5, 2013) and Heubel
(US 2009/0250267 Al, Oct. 8, 2009) (Final Act. 3-27).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Modarres, Heubel, and Goulthorpe (US 7 ,277 ,080 B2, Oct. 2, 2007)
(Final Act. 28-29).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 29, and 30
Independent claim 1 requires a selective clamping mechanism capable
of selectively restricting movement of one or more second regions of an
2
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
interaction surface by at least partially counteracting an effect of an actuator
on a portion of the one or more second regions. Independent claims 29 and
30 have similar requirements.
The Examiner finds Modarres teaches a clamping mechanism that
restricts movement and partially counteracts effects of Modarres' actuator
(Final Act. 3--4, 13-16; Ans. 2--4). And to the extent Modarres does not
teach selective counteraction, the Examiner finds Heubel teaches a selective
clamping mechanism (id.). Appellants argue neither Modarres, Heubel, nor
the combination of Modarres and Heubel, teaches a clamping mechanism
that selectively counteracts the effects of an actuator (App. Br. 12-15; Reply
Br. 2--4). We agree.
Regarding Modarres, the Examiner finds Modarres' polymer matrix,
which is designed to provide haptic related suspension properties, restricts
movement of one or more second regions of Modarres' interaction surface
(Final Act. 3; Ans. 2--4 ). The Examiner interprets the inherent restriction of
movement as partially counteracting the effect of Modarres' actuator (id.).
Appellants argue Modarres' polymer matrix is controlled by
Modarres' actuator, and thus, rather than at least partially counteracting an
effect of the actuator, the polymer matrix is responsive to and controlled by
the actuator (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 2--4). We find Appellants'
arguments persuasive. Although Modarres' polymer matrix may inherently
resist an applied force by its actuator, this inherent resistance is not the same
as a clamping mechanism designed to counteract the effects of the actuator.
Rather, this inherent resistance is a result of Modarres' polymer matrix
cooperating with its actuator. Further, the Examiner has not shown, nor do
3
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
we find, a mechanism in Modarres that utilizes the act of clamping to
counteract the effects of its actuator.
Regarding Heubel, the Examiner finds Heubel' s deformation
mechanism pushes and pulls Heubel' s haptic surface to form patterns in
Heubel's flexible surface (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2--4). The Examiner thus finds
Heubel teaches a clamping mechanism that selectively counteracts the effect
of an actuator because Heubel' s "haptic surface ... provides a force and the
deforming surface pull[ s] and pushes the haptic surface[]. Therefore, it
counteracts the force of the actuator" (Ans. 3--4).
Appellants argue Heubel' s deforming mechanism causes its flexible
surface layer to take the shape of its haptic substrate, and thus the deforming
mechanism and the flexible surface layer do not restrict or counteract, even
partially, the effects of an actuator on any region. Rather, Heubel's
deforming mechanism cooperates with the actuators to propagate the effects
to additional portions of its device (App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4). We agree.
The forces associated with deforming and flexing Heubel' s surfaces are
cooperating forces, not counteracting forces. Moreover, the Examiner has
not shown, nor do we find, a mechanism in Heubel that utilizes the act of
clamping to counteract the effects of an actuator.
Claims 31, 37, and 40
Independent claim 31 recites "a controllable clamping mechanism
capable of dynamically varying a resistance of the deformation in the
adaptable surface to movement in response to a pressure applied by the
user." Independent claims 37 and 40 recite similar limitations.
4
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
The Examiner finds Modarres' polymer matrix, which comprises
haptic related properties that restrict movement of one or more second
regions of Modarres' interaction surface, and that can be used to achieve
specific characteristics of haptic feedback via a touch screen device, teaches
the claimed controllable clamping mechanism (Final Act. 16-17, 20, 23).
Appellants argue Modarres' polymer matrix is passive and of a fixed
composition, thus any resistance provided by the polymer matrix is not
dynamically varied in response to user pressure (see App. Br. 33; see also
Reply Br. 10). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although
Modarres may provide haptic feedback to a user, the Examiner has not
shown, nor do we find, that in order to effectuate such haptic feedback, a
resistance of deformation of Modarres' surface is varied in response to
pressure applied by the user.
The Examiner further finds Heubel teaches the claimed controllable
clamping mechanism because Heubel' s deforming mechanism provides
pulling and pushing forces to provide textures via a touch surface, and the
provided textures are controllable and customizable (Final Act. 1 7-18, 21,
24; Ans. 9-10). The Examiner additionally finds Heubel's provided textures
are directly related to the degree of clamping or resistance that is applied to
Heubel's surface (Ans. 9-10).
Appellants argue that although Heubel' s deforming mechanism
(haptic substrate) may push or pull its flexible screen with varying amounts
of force, this does not teach dynamic variation of the resistance of
deformation to form the pattern in the haptic substrate (App. Br. 33, Reply
Br. 10). We agree. We find no evidence in Heubel that the resistance
5
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
utilized to form the pattern in Heubel' s haptic substrate is dynamically
varied in response to pressure applied by a user to Heubel' s flexible screen.
Appellants additionally argue that neither Modarres nor Heubel
teaches dynamic variation of the resistance of deformation by a clamping
mechanism (App. Br. 33; Ans. 11). We agree. The Examiner has not
shown, nor do we find, a mechanism in Modarres or Heubel that utilizes the
act of clamping to dynamically vary a resistance of deformation.
Claim 41
Independent claim 41 recites "an adaptable surface" that is
"deformable under a user-applied pressure to assume a shape and a pressure
response that substantially mimics [an] input device when pressed." The
Examiner finds the combination of Modarres and Heubel teaches the
disputed limitation (Final Act. 25-26; Ans. 10-11 ). Specifically, the
Examiner finds Heubel teaches an adaptable surface that can mimic the
appearance and functionality of an input device (id.). The Examiner further
finds Modarres teaches a touch screen that can receive a user-applied
pressure from a user and provide haptic feedback to the user (id.).
Appellants argue, although Modarres teaches providing to a user
various types of haptic feedback effects such as vibration or other tactile
signals, none of Modarres' haptic feedback effects include mimicking a
shape and pressure response of an input device (App. Br. 37-38; Reply Br.
11-12). Appellants additionally argue that although Heubel teaches
providing confirmation haptic feedback to a user to confirm that a user has
pressed a button for example, Heubel does not teach that the confirmation
haptic feedback includes mimicking a shape and pressure response of an
6
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
input device (id.). We agree. Although the combination of Modarres and
Heubel teaches mimicking the shape of an input device, confirming
activation or selection of the input device, and providing appropriate haptic
feedback thereof, we find no evidence in Modarres and/ or Heubel that the
haptic feedback mimics the shape and pressure response of the input device. 2
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Modarres and Heubel teaches:
1. "a first selective clamping mechanism capable of
restricting movement of one or more second regions of the
interaction surface that are coplanar with the first region and
that partly intersect the first region, the restricting at least
partially counteracting an effect of the actuator on a portion of
the one or more second regions," as recited in independent
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 29 and 30;
2. "a controllable clamping mechanism capable of
dynamically varying a resistance of the deformation in the
adaptable surface to movement in response to a pressure
applied by the user," as recited in independent claim 31 and
similarly recited in independent claims 37 and 40; and
3. an "adaptable surface being dynamically deformable
under a control of the computing system so as to produce a
2 Appellants make additional arguments regarding dependent claims 2-28,
32-36, 38, 39, and 42--46. (App. Br. 12--40; Reply Br. 2-12). We do not
address the additional arguments, however, as the issues associated with the
independent claims are dispositive of the Appeal.
7
Appeal2014-009022
Application 13/158,122
deformation that substantially mimics an appearance associated
with an input device, wherein the deformation is further
deformable under a user applied pressure to assume a shape and
a pressure response that substantially mimics the input device
when pressed," as recited in independent claim 41.
We therefore do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 29, 30, 31, 37,
40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as claims 2-11, 13-28, 32-36,
38, 39, and 42--46, dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12 because the Examiner has not
identified any teachings in Goulthorpe to overcome the above-noted
deficiencies of Modarres and Heubel.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--46.
REVERSED
8