THIKA HOLDINGS LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2021

2020003346 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
14/943,421 11/17/2015 Vivien Cambridge THI2-PT003.1 2043
3624 7590 07/22/2021
VOLPE KOENIG
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, DENNIS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2021 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIVIEN CAMBRIDGE
Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT E.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, 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 1–3, 6, and 8–17. 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 Thika Holdings
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a controller, and more specifically, relate
to a feedback controller for the virtual reality environment.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for dexterous interaction in a virtual world, the
system comprising:
a manipulation device comprising:
a housing including a plurality of buttons and a
plurality of vibration elements each associated with at
least one of the plurality of buttons;
an orientation sensor configured for detecting data
based on orientation of the housing;
a processor in communication with the plurality of
buttons, the plurality of vibration elements, and the
orientation sensor, wherein the processor is configured to
receive the data from the orientation sensor, and the
processor is configured to transmit the data;
a computer comprising a display, wherein a virtual
environment including at least one virtual element adapted to be
manipulated based on movement of the manipulation device is
shown on the display, and
the computer receives the data from the processor and the
computer is configured to analyze the data to manipulate the at
least one virtual element, and manipulation of a secondary virtual
element by the at least one virtual element in the virtual
environment provides tactile feedback to the manipulation
device, and the tactile feedback is representative of at least a
surface characteristic of the secondary virtual element.
See Corrected Claims App. 6.

Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Olsson et al. US 2012/0306603 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Grant et al. US 2015/0331488 A1 Nov. 19, 2015
Chataignier et al. US 2016/0077589 A1 Mar. 17, 2016

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Olsson and Grant. Final Act. 3–12.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Olsson, Grant, and Chataignier. Final Act. 12–13.

OPINION
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON OLSSON AND GRANT
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8–17
The Examiner determines that Grant teaches “the tactile feedback []
representative of at least a surface characteristic of the secondary virtual
element.” Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner explains that the claimed “‘surface
characteristic of the secondary virtual element’ is broader than what is
intended by Appellant’s definition and needs to be better defined.” Ans. 4.
The Examiner points out the “spirit of Grant’s invention” is “to provide
symbolic haptic representation of real world physical properties of light
switches, dials, etc.” Ans. 7. The Examiner, in particular, relies on Grant’s
disclosure of haptic effects relating to a user’s interaction with a light switch
or a rotary dial. According to the Examiner, Grant’s haptic feedback
Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421

4
simulates a physical property, namely, the position of the light switch or
rotary dial and this sufficiently teaches the claimed surface characteristic
limitation. Ans. 6–7. For example, the Examiner explains, “a rotary dial is
known to have detents spaced apart. As the user engages the dial, if the user
feels tactile feedback as they move over a detent, this is a reasonable
interpretation of the surface characteristic being translated/considered when
providing tactile feedback.” Ans. 7.
Appellant argues that Grant fails to teach or suggest the tactile
feedback is representative of at least a surface characteristic of the secondary
virtual element. Appeal Br. 13. In particular, Appellant asserts Grant’s
providing haptic feedback representing an interaction with the virtual
environment does not represent a surface characteristic. According to
Appellant, Grant teaches providing haptic response related to the position of
a light switch and not the surface of the light switch. Appeal Br. 15.
Similarly, with respect to Grant’s rotary dial, Appellant contends,
Grant clearly states that the haptic effects are related to the
spacing of detents in the dial when the dial is moved. These are
not surface features. The haptic effects represent how far the
disclosed rotary dial is turned or moved. The surface features of
the rotary dial are unrelated to this movement.
Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis omitted).
We agree that Grant fails to teach or suggest the claimed tactile
feedback representative of at least a surface characteristic. Notably, the
claimed invention, in contrast, expressly recites a “surface” characteristic.
The Specification, for example, describes the user receiving feedback to
Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421

5
“reflect the texture of the tree’s surface.” Spec ¶ 29.2 Grant, in contrast,
describes using haptic feedback to simulate the movement or position of the
light switch or rotary dial. Providing haptic feedback to represent the
position of a light switch or rotary dial does not teach or suggest a surface
characteristic. As Appellant points out, Grant is silent about the surface
features or texture of the light switch or rotary dial and, as such, fails to
teach the claimed limitation.3 As such, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 6, and 8–17 as unpatentable over Olsson and Grant.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON OLSSON, GRANT, AND CHATAIGNIER
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. As discussed above, we are persuaded
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Olsson and
Grant. Chataignier does not cure the deficiencies of Olsson and Grant and,
therefore, we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3.

2 We note that “surface” is defined as “a. The outer or the topmost boundary
of an object. b. A material layer constituting such a boundary.” Surface, The
American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed. 2020) (available at
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=surface.).
3 We note that “detent” is defined as “A catch or lever that locks the
movement of one part of a mechanism.” The American Heritage Dictionary
(5th ed. 2020) (available at
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=detent). Therefore,
Grant’s disclosure of detents of a rotary dial do not teach a surface
characteristic.
Appeal 2020-003346
Application 14/943,421

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over
Olsson, Grant, and Chataignier.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 6, and 8–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8–17 103 Olsson, Grant 1, 2, 6, 8–17
3 103 Olsson, Grant,
Chataignier
3
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6, 8–17

REVERSED