Ex Parte Aono

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2018

13392858 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/392,858 02/27/2012
78198 7590
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
11/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tomotake Aono
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.
005000-KOOOl 9 2719
EXAMINER
JANSEN II, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2018 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 TOMOTAKE AONO
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5, which constitute all the pending claims
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Kyocera Corporation as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 2).
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to an input apparatus "which
provides feedback to a user through a tactile sensation in response to a push
operation and a slide operation to a touch sensor by the user" (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. An input apparatus comprising:
a touch sensor configured to detect a touch input;
a display unit configured to display an object;
a tactile sensation providing unit configured to vibrate a
touch face of the touch sensor;
a load detection unit configured to detect a pressure load
on the touch face; and
a control unit configured to control drive of the tactile
sensation providing unit such that a tactile sensation is provided
to a touch object touching the touch face, wherein
the control unit is configured to determine whether the
touch object is sliding on the touch face, and when the touch
object is sliding on the touch face, to control drive of the tactile
sensation providing unit such that a tactile sensation of sliding
is provided to the touch object without providing a tactile
sensation of pushing even with the load detection unit detecting
the pressure load changing from a state failing to satisfy a first
predetermined load to a state satisfying the first predetermined
load and, when the touch object is not sliding on the touch face
and the load detection unit detects the pressure load changing
from the state failing to satisfy the first predetermined load to
the state satisfying the first predetermined load, to control drive
of the tactile sensation providing unit such that the tactile
2
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
sensation of pushing, different from the tactile sensation of
sliding, is provided to the touch object,
wherein the control unit is configured to set a second
load higher than the first predetermined load on the basis of the
pressure load detected by the load detection unit when the touch
object stops sliding on the touch face and, after the second load
is set, to control drive of the tactile sensation providing unit
such that the tactile sensation of pushing is provided to the
touch object when the load detection unit detects the pressure
load changing from a state failing to satisfy the second load to a
state satisfying the second load.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Poupyrev US 2008/0024459 Al Jan. 31, 2008
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being
anticipated by Poupyrev (Final Act. 4 ).
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding Poupyrev
discloses the limitation of "wherein the control unit is configured to set a
second load higher than the first predetermined load on the basis of the
pressure load detected by the load detection unit when the touch object stops
sliding on the touch face," as recited in independent claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (theBoardmaytreatarguments
Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellant argues that "Poupyrev does not disclose or suggest
detecting or determining a stop of sliding. Therefore, Poupyrev does not
disclose or suggest setting a second load higher than the first predetermined
load 'on the basis of the pressure load ... when the touch object stops
sliding"' (Reply Br. 3). Appellant further contends "Poupyrev does not
disclose that the controller section can actually 'set' a second threshold
above the disclosed actuation threshold pt [(pressure threshold)] based on a
pressure load detected by the pressure sensing unit when the user's finger
stops sliding" (Id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "paragraphs [0078-0098] address situations where the
user slides a finger into a GUI object 310 above or below an actuation
threshold, stops, and subsequently perform a gesture to actuate an object by
pressing harder" (Ans. 4), and further that
Poupyrev clearly must set this as a new standard to actuate the
object as the originally set actuation threshold 321 (i.e. the
claimed first predetermined load detection) will no longer
actuate the object. In order for Poupyrev to determine an
4
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
actuation event, a newly set level of pressure that is higher than
the actuation threshold 321, must now be used to determine the
actuation of the object. This newly set level is clearly the level
required by the "impulse-like increase of pressure" which is
[equated] to Appellants' "second load". This is also clearly
"higher than the first predetermined load" as it is a spike in the
sensed pressure level above the actuation threshold "pt"
(Ans. 8). The Examiner's cited portion of Poupyrev discloses a technique in
which "the user 2 should stop the finger for a small period of time inside the
GUI object 310 and then press stronger to actuate the GUI object 31 O" and
further notes such a "technique is useful to separate the accidental activation
of the GUI object when the user 2 slides finger across it" (Poupyrev ,r 89,
emphasis added). This action is in agreement with those depicted in Figures
5(a}-5(c) that make use of an increased "actuation threshold pressure" as
shown in Figure 5(c). Appellant's remaining arguments (see Reply Br. 3--4)
are similarly contradicted by Poupyrev's disclosure.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
1, and dependent claims 3 and 5 not separately argued. See App. Br. 6,
Reply Br. 5.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Poupyrev discloses the limitation
of "wherein the control unit is configured to set a second load higher than
the first predetermined load on the basis of the pressure load detected by the
load detection unit when the touch object stops sliding on the touch face," as
recited in independent claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-005229
Application 13/392,858
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6