Ex Parte Tremblay et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201611580452 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111580,452 10/13/2006 34300 7590 10/03/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP 1001 W Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark R. Tremblay 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. 043508-0404949 6277 EXAMINER BUKOWSKI, KENNETH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com kts _imm_ docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK R. TREMBLAY and MARK H. YIM Appeal2015-004276 Application 11/580,452 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOV AN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellants identify Immersion Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Oct. 13, 2006 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Jan. 27, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 19, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Jan. 2, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Feb. 23, 2015 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2015-004276 Application 11/580,452 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a tactile feedback man-machine interface device. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A system comprising: a host computer configured to display a graphical interface; a first interface device configured to be operated by a first user to control a first graphical object within the graphical interface, wherein the first graphical object comprises a graphical representation of at least a portion of a body part associated with a first user, the first interface device having a first actuator disposed within a housing of the first interface device, thereby protecting the first actuator from contact by the first user, the first actuator configured to output a first force to be felt by the first user upon receiving an activating signal from the host computer; and a second interface device configured to be operated by a second user to control a second graphical object within the graphical interface, wherein the second graphical object comprises a graphical representation of at least a portion of a body part associated with a second user, the second interface device having a second actuator disposed within a housing of the second interface device, thereby protecting the second actuator from contact by the second user, the second actuator configured to output a second force to be felt by the second user upon receiving the activating signal from the host computer, wherein the host computer transmits the activating signal to the first and second interface devices upon occurrence of a common computer event in the graphical interface, the activating signal causing the first and second actuators to output the first force and the second force. (App. Br. 10--Claims App'x.) 2 Appeal2015-004276 Application 11/580,452 REJECTION Claims 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Good (US 5,185,561, iss. Feb. 9, 1993), Kramer (US 5,184,319, iss. Feb. 2, 1993), and Retter (US 4,917,516, iss. Apr. 17, 1990). (Final Act. 3-5.) ANALYSIS Appellants argue there is no reason for Good's head monitor to display graphical representations of at least a portion of body parts of first and second users. (App. Br. 4---6.) The Examiner took Official Notice that displaying graphical representations of a body part was known in the art, and cited Tom in support of the Official Notice. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner states Tom shows a virtual representation of a user's hand as it grips a virtual snake, while in reality, the user is gripping the handle of a toy. (Id. citing Tom Fig. 7.) We agree that Tom shows graphical representation of a body part of a single user. Appellants argue there is no reason why one of ordinary skill would have modified Good by adding a second device operable by a second user when the head mounted monitor only allows a single user at a time. (App. Br. 6.) The Examiner disagrees, stating that nothing in Good restricts a second user from using the head mounted monitor. (Ans. 4---6.) We agree. The Examiner also states nothing in claim 9: (i) requires the graphical user interface to be limited to a single display; (ii) requires the first and second users to view the same, single graphical interface; (iii) prevents the graphical interface from being more than one display; or (iv) requires the second user to be able to see the graphical interface. (Id.) Good's Figure 1 is reproduced below: 3 Appeal2015-004276 Application 11/580,452 .----- 2 o-··-1 COMPU1ER 40 CONTROLLER BOARD 60 COMPUTER 11NTERFACE 32 FIG. l II / Good, Figure 1, showing user wearing head mounted monitor 10 and holding a computer interface device 30. It 'vould have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill that modifying Good to accomrnodate multiple users would have been desirable. Furthermore, it has been held that "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." Jn re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960). As claimed, the second interface device is identical to the first interface device. Good teaches a first interface device, and duplicating this to provide a second interface device for another user would have been obvious. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner comrnitted reversible error in the rejection. Appellants argue Retter does not teach or suggest that the second data entry device 16 is intended to be operated by a second user. (App. Br. 6-7.) Thus, according to Appellants, Retter does not teach or suggest the claimed 4 Appeal2015-004276 Application 11/580,452 limitation of "a second interface device configured to be operated by a second user to control a second graphical object within the graphical interface, wherein the second graphical object comprises a graphical representation of at least a portion of a body part associated with a second user." We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' argument concerns the intended use of the second interface device, which is ineffective to distinguish over the reference. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We also agree with Appellants that Retter includes data entry devices 15, 16 for right and left hands of an operator. However, this does not negate that multiple users could use the data entry devices, or that mere duplication of parts would have been obvious per Harza. Ritter's Figure 1 is reproduced below: ~:~j