Ex Parte Goldenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 20, 2016

11927273 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111927,273 10/29/2007
34300 7590 01/21/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, LLP
1001 W Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alex S. Goldenberg
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.
IMM089G 5779
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, ALECIA DIANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
0112112016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEX S. GOLDENBERG, STEVEN P. VASSALLO,
KENNETH M. MARTIN, and ADAM C. BRAUN 1
Appeal2014-001469
Application 11/927 ,273
Technology Center 2600
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-14. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Immersion Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001469
Application 11/927 ,273
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to providing "haptic feedback effects
for control knobs." Abstract. According to the Specification, the use of
haptic sensations "take[ s] advantage of the limited motion of a rotational
device such as a knob and provide[ s] greater control over selection and other
operations." Spec. i-f 6.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a sensor signal associated with a motion of a
manipulandum in a degree of freedom;
determining a direction of the motion of the manipulandum in
the degree of freedom based on the sensor signal;
determining a position of the manipulandum in the degree of
freedom based on the sensor signal;
after determining the direction and the position, calculating a
force signal using the direction and the position; and
outputting the force signal to cause a force to be output on the
manipulandum.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Schuler et al. (US 5,889,670; Mar. 30, 1999) ("Schuler"). 2
Ans. 4--10.
2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schuler and Solomon (US
2
Appeal2014-001469
Application 11/927 ,273
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Schuler discloses "calculating a
force signal using the direction [of movement] and the position" of a
manipulandum (e.g., a knob), as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Schuler discloses outputting the
calculated force "to be output on the manipulandum," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS 3
Appellants argue Schuler does not disclose generating forces to be
applied to a manipulandum (e.g., a knob) based on both position and
direction of movement of the manipulandum, but rather uses only position
information. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants assert "Schuler discloses
outputting forces to the manipulandum based solely on position through the
use of a 'torque-position' profile, not based on a direction of motion." Id.
(citing Schuler, col. 5, 11. 42-64). Further, Appellants contend the
Examiner's finding that the direction is used to update a position and is,
4,706,006; Nov. 10, 1987). Final Act. 2-10. In responding to the
Appellants' Appeal Brief, the Examiner changes the basis of the rejection
from 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Ans. 3. The Examiner
indicates such a change does not constitute a new grounds of rejection "as
the newly cited portions of the disclosure of Schuler would have been
identified in response to the [A ]ppellant' s [sic] arguments and the same
teachings of Schuler are being relied upon." Ans. 3. Other than the
substantive findings made by the Examiner, Appellants do not dispute this
reasomng.
3 Throughout this opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed May
16, 2013 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed November 11, 2013 ("Reply Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed on September 11, 2013 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action mailed on August 17, 2012, from which this Appeal is
taken ("Final Act.").
3
Appeal2014-001469
Application 11/927 ,273
therefore, used to calculate a force, is contrary to the plain requirement of
claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because, as the
Examiner explains, Schuler discloses "a counter[,] which receives position
information from the encoder, will increment or decrement depending on the
direction of the change of position of the servo motor." Ans. 11 (citing
Schuler, col. 6, 11. 3---6). As illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the output of the
counter (130/130') is presented to the microprocessor (132/132'), which
determines the force to be output on the manipulandum. See Schuler, col. 7,
11. 6---64. Further, Schuler discloses "the encoder 118' and a tachometer 152
associated with the first actuator 114' indicate the direction and speed,
respectively, of the first actuator 114' to the microprocessor 132'." Schuler,
col. 7, 11. 8-11.
Additionally, Appellants contend "while Schuler discloses receiving
input on a first knob and generating forces to rotate a second knob to
correspond to the movement of the first knob, this is not a force on the
manipulandum." App. Br. 8 (citing Schuler, col. 7, 11. 6-33). In other
words, Appellants contend the applied force is on a different manipulandum
(i.e., knob) instead of the knob for which the direction and position have
been determined. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. Thus, Appellants conclude
"because Schuler discloses generating a force signal and applying the force
signal to a second manipulandum using direction and position, not the
original ('first') manipulandum, Schuler does not anticipate claim 1." Reply
Br. 3.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, "Schuler discloses with reference to
4
Appeal2014-001469
Application 11/927 ,273
control knob (114) that position information is received from the encoder
and processed by the controller, wherein the controller accesses stored input
data in the form of torque-position relation information which correlates to a
received position count with a related torque value." Ans. 11. Additionally,
Schuler discloses "the first actuator 114' is manually rotated N clicks as
sensed according to its torque profile implemented as discussed
hereinbefore." Schuler, col. 7, 11. 6-8. Thus, we find Schuler discloses
outputting the force signal to cause a force to be output on the same
manipulandum (i.e., knob) for which position and direction of motion were
determined.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and, for
similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 6 and 8, which contain
similar limitations and were not argued separately. App. Br. 9. Further, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9-14, which were not
argued separately. App. Br. 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
lv
5