Ex Parte Takala et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 201911786680 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/786,680 04/11/2007 Roope Takala 570 7590 05/07/2019 P ANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP TWO COMMERCE SQUARE 2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 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. 688824-l l 7US 8303 EXAMINER PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/07/2019 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): usptomail@panitchlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROOPE TAKALA, RHYS NEWMAN, RACHAEL SLEIGHT, MAREE PARK, and ANDREW GARTRELL Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,6801 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-17, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 18-62 have been cancelled. WeAFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Gula Consulting Limited Liability Company. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed October 18, 2017 ("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed April 25, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed February 27, 2018 ("Ans."); and Final Office Action mailed May 18, 2017 ("Final Act."). Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. An input system for an electronic device comprising: an input actuator adapted to be depressed to facilitate input of a signal into the electronic device; a location sensing device configured to sense a location of a finger proximate the input actuator at least prior to actuation of the input actuator; and an actuator location signaling system adapted to signal location of the input actuator in response to the location sensing device, wherein the actuator location signaling system comprises a structurally-textured surface comprising a predetermined pattern of ridges configured to provide a texture and proximate the input actuator to facilitate contact with a finger, and a textured surface moving device configured to move the textured surface to enhance sensory input to the finger while the finger is in contact with the textured surface; and wherein the predetermined pattern of ridges is configured to be maintained during operation of the textured surface moving device. Murphy Rosenberg Colgate References US 2002/0054030 Al US 2006/023 8514 A 1 US 2007 /0236450 Al Examiner's Rejection May 9, 2002 Oct. 26, 2006 Oct. 11, 2007 Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate. Final Act. 3-11. 2 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103: Obviousness "ridges" Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Murphy teaches a "surface comprising ... ridges." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants argue "Murphy does not teach 'ridges,' but rather, teaches domes." App. Br. 9 (citing Murphy Fig. l); Reply Br. 2. Although the Examiner finds Murphy teaches ridges, the Examiner additionally finds Rosenberg teaches a "surface comprising ... ridges," as claimed, i.e., "a ridged surface," as described in Rosenberg. Final Act. 4 (citing Rosenberg ,-J,-J 10-14, Figs. lA-lC), 11); Ans. 13. We agree because Rosenberg describes a membrane having "annular ripples" (Rosenberg ,-J 13; see id. Figs. lA-1 C), i.e., "ridges." Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Rosenberg teaches a "surface comprising ... ridges. Indeed, Appellants acknowledge Rosenberg teaches ridges. See App. Br. 10 (discussing the result of "[a]dding ridges, as in Rosenberg et al., or replacing the domes of Murphy with the ridges of Rosenberg"); Reply Br. 2. As such, because Appellants do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's finding that Rosenberg teaches "ridges," we need not address whether Murphy teaches "ridges." 3 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 Improper combination Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-4. Specifically, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Murphy and Rosenberg because the "combination would destroy, or at the very least impede, Murphy for a purpose for which it was designed, i.e., with a deployment/retraction mechanism that deploys or retracts an overlay containing the domes." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue that the skilled artisan "would not have been motivated to combine" Murphy and Rosenberg because Rosenberg "permit[ s] the user to move a central disk portion in the x-y plane" to actuate a button, whereas "Murphy does not contain buttons/disks to be moved by the user's finger in the x-y plane." App. Br. 10-11. Still further, Appellants argue "it is unlikely, at best, that the apparatus of Colgate ... would successfully operate as a 'textured surface moving device configured to move the textured surface to enhance sensory input to the finger,"' when combined with Murphy and Rosenberg. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As discussed above, the Examiner combines Rosenberg's ridged surface with Murphy. The Examiner further relies on (Final Act. 5) Colgate's disclosure of a haptic device ... to create shear force patterns ... in response to finger position ... to generate one or more virtual texture sensations that can be felt by the user's finger or other appendage as indirect haptic feedback. For example, the computer control device modulates the amplitude of vibration of ultrasonic vibrations. Colgate ,-J 80; see Colgate ,-J 52. 4 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 Appellants' arguments that the Examiner improperly combined Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-3) are based on the bodily incorporation of features that the Examiner's combination does not rely on or require. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."). First, Appellants' argument that the combination of Murphy and Rosenberg "would destroy, or at the very least impede, Murphy for a purpose for which it was designed, i.e., with a deployment/retraction mechanism" for overlaying a surface on an input mechanism (App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 2) unnecessarily incorporates Murphy's optional deployment/retraction mechanism, on which the Examiner's combination does not rely. The deployment/retraction mechanism described by Murphy (Murphy ,-J 43) is one of multiple alternative embodiments described by Murphy for overlaying a surface on an input without the deployment/retraction mechanism. Id. ,-i,-i 41 ("flexible membrane 101 [is] hingedly connected to telephone housing 16 and, thus, associated with touch screen 20"), 46 ("flexible membrane 101 is removably maintained in association with rigid contact surface 21 using a band of adhesive disposed about the periphery of the membrane"), 4 7 ("flexible membrane 101 is removably maintained in association with rigid contact surface 21 using a mated pair of hook and loop fasteners, commercially known as VELCRO"). Even if incorporating Rosenberg's textured surface into Murphy's deployment/retraction mechanism were to cause that deployment/retraction mechanism to be inoperable, the Examiner's combination does not incorporate that particular deployment/retraction mechanism (see Final 5 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 Act. 4 ). As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's combination results in an inoperable device. Second, Appellants' argument that Rosenberg "permit[ s] the user to move a central disk portion in the x-y plane" to actuate a button, while "Murphy does not contain buttons/disks to be moved by the user's finger in the x-y plane" (App. Br. 10-11), requires incorporating x-y plane button movement that the Examiner's combination does not rely on. The Examiner only relies on Rosenberg's z-axis button movement in the combination of Murphy and Rosenberg. Final Act. 4 ("a domed switch ... for determining Z pressure") ( citing Rosenberg ,-J 24). Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "it is unlikely, at best, that the apparatus of Colgate ... would successfully operate as a 'textured surface moving device configured to move the textured surface to enhance sensory input to the finger,"' in combination with Murphy and Rosenberg. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4. The argument is based on using Colgate's piezoelectric elements to vibrate the ridged surface taught by the combination of Murphy and Rosenberg. See App. Br. 11-13; see also Reply Br. 3-4. But neither Colgate nor the Examiner's combination limit themselves to using piezoelectric elements for haptic vibrations. The Examiner's combination relies on Colgate to describe "vibrating the touchscreen surface in response to user touch location and input to provide active haptic feedback while the user is touching the surface." Final Act. 5. And Colgate describes that vibrating haptic devices are not limited to piezoelectric elements. For example, Colgate describes that haptic feedback "actuator[ s] can comprise a piezoelectric actuator, a voice coil, a pager motor, or a solenoid." Colgate ,-J 10. Accordingly, the 6 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 argument is not persuasive because Appellants allege fault with one particular type of haptic feedback actuator, but the Examiner's combination is not limited to using that particular type of haptic feedback actuator. Furthermore, even if the combination of Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate did use a piezoelectric actuator for haptic feedback, Appellants' argument that the combination would not function properly is supported only by attorney argument, which "cannot take the place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In addition, Colgate teaches that, "for example, the amplitude of an ultrasonic vibrator (transducer), such as the piezoelectric bending element 102, is modulated to generate a high- frequency oscillation that is imparted to substrate 104" for haptic feedback. Colgate ,-J 55. Colgate continues that"[ m Jodulation of the amplitude of the excitation voltage at the piezoelectric bending element 104 can be controlled by various control systems." Id. ,-i 56. Because Colgate details tuning piezoelectric devices to provide desired levels of haptic feedback, we are not persuaded that it would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" to combine Colgate's disclosure of piezoelectric elements with the teachings of Murphy and Rosenberg to vibrate the combination's ridged surfaces. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in combining the teachings of Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate or in finding the combination teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 17. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate. Appellants do not argue separate patentability for 7 Appeal 2018-005270 Application 11/786,680 dependent claims 3, 4, 7-9, and 11-16, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 6. See App. Br. 13. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-17. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-1 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Rosenberg, and Colgate. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation