Inoue, Hiroshi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2019004776 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
13/818,962 02/25/2013 Hiroshi Inoue 005000-K00064 1065
78198 7590 03/30/2021
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEFFREY ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 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):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HIROSHI INOUE AND AKINORI SATO
____________________

Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Kyocera Corporation is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device with a touch sensor and a tactile
sensation feedback mechanism, in which the influence of the tactile
sensation on detection of a position by a touch sensor is reduced. See Spec.
Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A tactile sensation providing apparatus comprising:
a touch sensor;
a tactile sensation providing unit disposed near the touch
sensor and configured to vibrate the touch sensor;
a touch sensor control unit configured to transmit a
scanning signal to the touch sensor and, by receiving the
scanning signal from the touch sensor, to detect a position of a
contact to the touch sensor;
a cable configured to transmit the scanning signal
between the touch sensor and the touch sensor control unit; and
a tactile sensation control unit configured to, based on the
position of the contact detected by the touch sensor control unit,
control the tactile sensation providing unit to vibrate the touch
sensor, wherein
an electric field is generated by the tactile sensation
providing unit when vibrating the touch sensor,
the tactile sensation providing unit is entirely disposed
outside of a periphery of the touch sensor such that the tactile
sensation providing unit does not overlap with the cable to
thereby reduce the influence of the electric field on detection of
the position of the contact to the touch sensor, and
the tactile sensation providing unit comprises a group of
a plurality of piezoelectric vibrators.

Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

3
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 3 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Tong (US 2011/0279381 A1, issued Nov. 17, 2011). Final
Act. 3–4.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park (US 2011/0193802 A1, issued Aug. 11, 2011) and
Hur (US 2009/0153368 A1, issued June 18, 2009). Final Act. 5–7.

Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 through 5
is in error as Tong fails to teach detecting a position of a contact with a
touch sensor as claimed. Appeal Br. 4. Additionally, Appellant argues that
Tong does not teach that the tactile sensation unit is prevented from
vibrating while the act of scanning to determine position is performed.
Appeal Br. 4–5, Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues Tong teaches that
scanning and tactile feedback (vibration) are performed at the same time in
paragraphs 40 and 41 and that in paragraph 50 the tactile feedback is
provided during or after the scan. Appeal Br. 4–5. Thus, Appellant argues
that Tong does not teach controlling the vibration to prevent vibration while
scanning is performed. Appeal Br. 5.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cites to Tong’s
paragraphs 22, 27 and 33 as further evidence to support the finding that

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 11,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 31, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed July 17, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed April 5, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

4
Tong teaches determining the location of a touch (claimed position of
contact to the touch sensor). Ans. 8–9. Further, the Examiner cites to
Tong’s Figures 5 and 6 and paragraphs 27, 29, 43, and 50, as further
evidence to support the finding that Tong teaches providing tactile feedback
after a scan associated with the touch. Ans. 10–14.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. First, we concur with the Examiner’s finding that
Tong teaches determining the position of the touch. (See, e.g., Tong ¶ 22
which discusses determining location of touch using x and y coordinates, see
also Fig. 5, and ¶¶ 33–36 which discusses determining touch location (step
506) and pressure (step 508 as separate steps)). Second, given the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the disputed limitation, directed to tactile
sensation unit being prevented from vibrating while the act of scanning to
determine position is performed, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in determining that Tong teaches the feature. We concur with the
Examiner that claim 3 does not require an active prevention mechanism.
Ans. 9. Appellant’s Specification discusses setting the timing of the
scanning and vibration to be at different times as the mechanism by which
the vibration is prevented during scanning. Spec. Fig. 8(c) and ¶ 55. As
such we consider the broadest reasonable interpretation, of the claim 3
limitation of the vibration of the tactile sensation control unit being
prevented while scanning is being performed, to be that the scanning to
determine location and tactical sensation vibration, are performed at
different times. We concur with the Examiner that Tong teaches this feature
in both the discussion in paragraph 50 (that the tactile feedback can be after
a scan of the touch sensor) and in process set forth in the flow charts of Figs.
Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

5
5 and 9. Specifically, step 506, the step of determining location of the touch,
is performed prior to the step 508, of determining pressure of the touch, and
prior to the steps of providing tactile feedback (steps 514 and 518). See also
¶¶ 33–36. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection, of claim 3 and claims 4 and 5 grouped
with claim 3.

Obviousness Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 is in
error as the combination of Park and Hur fails to teach the tactile sensation
providing unit is disposed outside of the touch sensor such that the unit does
not overlap the cable transmitting the scanning signal between the touch
sensor and the control unit. Appeal Br. 6–8, Reply Br. 4–7.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner provides an
annotated version of Park’s Figures 6 and 8, to demonstrate where the cables
that connect the controller to the touch screen electrodes must be located in
relation to the haptic feedback unit. Ans. 14–16. Based upon these
annotated figures the Examiner reasons that while Park does not explicitly
teach that the wires connecting the touch screen controller do not overlap the
haptic controller:
Park does, however, position these components so as not to
cause the overlap, as can be seen in Figs. 6 and 8. Further, it is
implied that the wires cannot overlap, especially when viewed
with Figs. 7 and 9 showing that there is no space for
overlapping the wires and the haptic controller because the
haptic controller is sandwiched in between the touch substrate
20 and LCD substrate 30. The only direction for the wires to
exit the controllers 25/423 are towards the touchscreen or up
towards the substrate, not adjacent. If the wires did go adjacent,
Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

6
then they would have to wrap around the haptic controller
rather than overlap it. Based on the configuration of Park, the
wires simply cannot overlap the haptic controller.

Ans. 16. Additionally, the Examiner cites to Figure 6 and paragraph 34 of
Hur as teaching that cables connecting the touch screen input sensors to the
driver, do not overlap the haptic output device. Ans. 16–17.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 2. Independent claim 1 recites that the tactile
sensation unit does not overlap with the cable transmitting a scanning signal
between the touch sensors and the touch sensor control unit. We have
reviewed the cited teachings of Park cited by the Examiner and find there is
insufficient evidence to support the Examiner’s findings that Park suggests
that the wires overlap. The Examiner’s marked up copies of Figures 6 and 8
are based upon speculation as to where the connecting lines between the
drivers and the touch sensors are located, and the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain the findings expressed in these mark ups. Further, we
have reviewed the cited teachings of Hur and disagree with the Examiner’s
findings that it teaches this disputed limitation. Hur teaches haptic input
cells 31 (touch sensors) and haptic output cells 41, as is clear from Figure 6,
the haptic output cells are not outside the touch screen and the vertical leads
(cables) from the haptic input cells to the controller, overlap the leads which
are part of the haptic output cells. As such, we do not find that the Examiner
has identified sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the limitation directed
to the tactile sensation unit is not overlapping with the cable transmitting
scanning signal between the touch sensors and the touch sensor control unit.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Appeal 2019-004776
Application 13/818,962

7
CONCLUSION

In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3–5 102(e) Tong 3–5
1, 2 103(a) Park, Hur 1, 2
Overall
Outcome
3–5 1, 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED IN PART