2020001249 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

Immersion Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 2021

2020001249 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2021)

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. 15/377,096 12/13/2016 Vahid Khoshkava IMM637 (051851-0971162) 4030 34300 7590 06/28/2021 Immersion / Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER EARLES, BRYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2021 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 ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com kts_imm_docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VAHID KHOSHKAVA and ABDELWAHAB HAMAM Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Immersion Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a systems and methods for proximity-based haptic feedback. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A device comprising: a proximity sensor capable of detecting a non-contact interaction with a touch-sensitive device and outputting a first sensor signal; a touch sensor capable of detecting a touch with the touch- sensitive device and outputting a second sensor signal; a haptic output device configured to receive a haptic output signal and output a haptic effect in response to the haptic output signal; and a processor configured to: receive the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal; generate a haptic output signal based at least in part on the first and second sensor signals; and transmit the haptic output signal to the haptic output device. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following as prior art: Name Reference Date Choe US 2010/0004033 A1 Jan. 7, 2010 Rosenberg ’848 US 2017/0285848 A1 Oct. 5, 2017 Rosenberg US 2017/0300166 A1 Oct. 19, 2017 2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 11–13 and 15–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choe. Final Act. 3. Claims 5 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choe and Rosenberg. Final Act. 6. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choe, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg ’848. Final Act. 8. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choe and Rosenberg ’848. Final Act. 9. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Choe teaches or suggests “a processor configured to: generate a haptic output signal based at least in part on the first and second sensor signals,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner’s Findings Claim 1 recites a device that includes both a proximity sensor and a touch sensor, and uses signals from each sensor to generate a haptic output. The proximity sensor detects non-contact interaction with the device and generates a first sensor signal, and the touch sensor detects a touch interaction and outputs a second sensor signal. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 43. Relevant to the issue before us, claim 1 recites the limitation “generate a haptic output signal based at least in part of the first and second sensor signals.” Appeal. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Choe discloses this limitation. Final Act. 2 (citing Choe ¶¶ 136–138), 4 (citing Choe ¶¶ 76–78). The Examiner explains that Choe’s Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 4 disclosure of generating haptic effects 225 and 226, as depicted in Figures 16(b) and 16(c), meets the argued limitation because effect 225 is generated based on a proximity signal, and 226 is based on a touch signal. The Examiner further explains that the argued limitation encompasses Choe’s two separate effects because Choe discloses that haptic effects are combinable. Ans. 10 (citing Choe ¶ 52). Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues the rejection is in error because “the claim requires determining a haptic effect based on signals from two sensors,” and that “Choe . . . makes clear that the haptic effect is determined based only on proximity.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s reliance on haptic effects 225 and 226, as described in paragraphs 136–138, is misplaced. Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 1–2. Specifically, Appellant argues that the claim requires that a single haptic effect be generated based on the first and second signals, but that the haptic effects 225 and 226 are separate and distinct haptic effects, as emphasized in Figures 16(b) and 16(c) of Choe. Appellant further asserts that the Examiner’s finding that haptic effects are combinable is not supported by the evidence. Specifically, Appellant argues: Choe paragraph [0052] simply describes synthesizing different vibration effects or outputting effects sequentially. This says nothing of determining a haptic effect based on both “a proximity sensor capable of detecting a non-contact interaction with a touch-sensitive device” and “a touch sensor capable of detecting a touch with the touch-sensitive device,” as is required by claim 1. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 5 Our Review Neither the Examiner nor Appellant appears to dispute that the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification for the argued limitation requires generating a haptic effect based on both a proximity signal and a touch signal, and does not mean that one haptic effect may be based on proximity and another haptic effect may be based on touch. We agree with both the Examiner and Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued limitation requires that both touch and proximity signals be used to generate each haptic effect. As noted above, the Examiner relies separately on two distinct passages in Choe as disclosing the argued limitation. We address each passage in turn. First, the Examiner cites Choe’s ¶¶ 76–78 as allegedly teaching the argued limitation. We agree with Appellant that Choe does not describe the using of touch sensing for generating the haptic signal in this embodiment, and we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reliance on Choe’s ¶¶ 76– 78 is misplaced. Second, the Examiner relies on ¶¶ 136–138 and Figures 16(a)–16(c) for support. We agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner’s finding that “Figures 16(a)-16(c) and the corresponding paragraphs [0136] - [0138] detail an example of providing a haptic effect using the sensing signals of both the proximity sensor 141 and the touch sensor 130” is not supported by the evidence. Choe’s Figure 16, reproduced below, shows two separate haptic effects. Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 6 The proximity haptic effect is “a haptic effect 225 in order to alert the user to the approach of the user's finger to the key 224.” Choe ¶ 137. The touch haptic effect is “haptic effect 226 in order to alert the user to the payment of charges.” Choe ¶ 138. Although this disclosure in Choe describes two haptic effects, neither of these haptic effects is generated based on both proximity signals and touch signals. Rather, the first haptic effect is based only on a proximity signal, and the second is haptic effect is based only on a touch signal. Choe makes this configuration clear in Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 7 paragraph 138, stating that the haptic effect uses either touch or proximity in the alterative, but not both together: “[O]nce the key 224 is touched or approached by the user’s finger, the controller 180 may control the haptic module 157 to generate a haptic effect 226 in order to alert the user to the payment of charges.” Choe ¶ 138. Thus, Choe discloses the haptic effect 226 is generated based on a touch of the user, or the approach of the user’s finger, but not both. Moreover, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s determination that Choe discloses that haptic signals may be combined is insufficient to support a finding of anticipation. As Appellant correctly notes, “Choe paragraph [0052] simply describes synthesizing different vibration effects or outputting effects sequentially.” Generally describing the use of synthesized vibration effects does not disclose that the specific signals 225 and 226 described by Choe in a separate embodiment are combined. Because Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Choe, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 2–4, 11–13, and 15–19, which depend therefrom. The remaining claims 5–10 and 14 are rejected under § 103. However, the Examiner does not identify any subject matter in the additionally cited references which would remedy the deficiencies of Choe discussed above. As a result, we also do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. Appeal 2020-001249 Application 15/377,096 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 11–13, 15–19 102(a)(1) Choe 1–4, 11–13, 15–19 5, 7–10 103 Choe, Rosenberg 5, 7–10 6 103 Choe, Rosenberg, Rosenberg ’848 6 14 103 Choe, Rosenberg ’848 14 Overall Outcome 1–19 REVERSED