Ex Parte Inoue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

13392871 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/392,871 02/27/2012
78198 7590
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
09/12/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hiroshi Inoue
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-K00025 5788
EXAMINER
KHOO,STACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2018 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 HIROSHI INOUE, KENJI KONO,
TOMOTAKE AONO, and JUN TAKEDA
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Technology
The application relates to "input apparatuses having touch sensors,"
such as "mobile phones," that are capable of providing a "tactile sensation,"
such as "vibrating" when the user touches the touch sensor. Spec. ,r,r 2, 3, 8.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Kyocera Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A tactile sensation providing apparatus comprising:
a plurality ofload detectors configured to detect a pressure
load when an object presses by a certain pressure a touch face of
a touch sensor configured to detect a touch input, wherein the
pressure load differs depending on a pushed position of the object
on the touch face;
a vibrator configured to provide a tactile sensation to the
object pressing the touch face of the touch sensor; and
a controller configured to control according to the pushed
position on the touch face such that the vibrator provides the
tactile sensation to the object when the object, applying the
certain pressure at which the tactile sensation is to be provided,
presses any position on the touch face for providing the tactile
sensation, wherein
the plurality of load detectors are disposed on a periphery
of the touch sensor and
the controller is configured to adjust the pressure load
detected by the plurality of load detectors according to the
pushed position and, when the adjusted pressure load satisfies a
standard to provide the tactile sensation, to control the vibrator
such that the tactile sensation is provided to the object pressing
the touch face.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Ma (US 2010/0220065 A 1; Sept. 2, 2010)
and Philipp et al. (US 2008/0202824 Al; Aug. 28, 2008). Final Act. 2.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination of Ma, Philipp, and Hoshino et al. (US 2008/0068343 Al; Mar.
20, 2008). Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over the combination ofNambu et al. (US 2009/0267902 Al;
Oct. 29, 2009) and Philipp. Final Act. 9-10, 13, 16.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination ofNambu, Philipp, and Hisatsugu et al. (US 2010/0045624 Al;
Feb. 25, 2010). Final Act. 15-16.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination ofNambu, Philipp, and Weber et al. (US 2010/0328229 Al;
Dec. 30, 2010). Final Act. 22.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Philipp teaches or suggests "to adjust
the pressure load detected by the plurality of load detectors according to the
pushed position," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "the controller is configured to adjust the pressure
load detected by the plurality of load detectors according to the pushed
position and, when the adjusted pressure load satisfies a standard to provide
the tactile sensation, to control the vibrator such that the tactile sensation is
provided to the object pressing the touch face." The other independent
claims (7, 8, and 14) recite commensurate limitations. Thus, the
independent claims recite comparing a standard ( e.g., a threshold) to an
adjusted pressure load.
The Examiner relies on Philipp for teaching this limitation. Final Act.
3. In particular, the Examiner relies on paragraph 84 of Philipp, which
discloses "to linearize this pressure response by setting the activation
3
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
pressure threshold dynamically depending on where the pressure is applied
on surface 62." Philipp ,r 84; Ans. 2-3. Thus, the system "can adjust the
pressure threshold required to activate an end-function" such that "a higher
pressure is required for activation at the edges than at the center." Philipp
,r 84.
Appellants argue that "[Philipp's] linearization is made by adjusting
the activation pressure threshold, whereas claim 1 recites adjusting the
pressure load." App. Br. 6.
Appellants are correct that Philipp teaches comparing an adjusted
standard ( e.g., a threshold) to the detected pressure load, whereas claim 1
recites comparing a fixed standard to an adjusted pressure load. The
Examiner's argument that Philipp teaches adjusting the pressure load rather
than the threshold (Ans. 2-3) is contradicted by paragraph 84 of Philipp.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 7, 8, and 14, and their dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6,
9, 10, 12, and 13.
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
Using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), we reject independent
claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
reasoning and art cited by the Examiner, supplemented as follows.
The Supreme Court has held that "when a patent simply arranges old
elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) (quotation omitted).
4
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
Here, Appellants' distinction between the claims and the prior art is a
mathematical operation that is interchangeable using only basic algebra.
Due to the multiplication property of equality, the determination whether
(pressure * adjustment) > threshold
is mathematically identical to the determination whether
threshold
pressure > d.
a 1ustment
See also Philipp ,r 84, Fig. 18 (showing an adjustment factor of 2 between
the edge and center). Thus, regardless of whether the adjustment is applied
to pressure (on the left-hand side of the equation) or to the threshold (on the
right-hand side of the equation), the adjustment performs the same function
(i.e., adjusting for the location of the touch) and yields no more than a
predictable result (i.e., an identical result in the comparison between
pressure versus threshold). Given this identity, the adjustment's location in
the equation would have been interchangeable and obvious under KSR. The
minor processor performance gain from using multiplication rather than
division provides further reason to modify Philipp.
Although we have rejected the independent claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(b), we have not reviewed the remaining claims to the extent
necessary to determine whether those claims are unpatentable for similar
reasons. We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of
any further rejections based thereon.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14.
5
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
In a new ground of rejection, we reject independent claims 1, 7, 8, and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TIME TO RESPOND
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). Section 4I.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review." Section 4I.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the
examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the
examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously
of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner,
overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the
decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may
again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request
for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state
with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
6
Appeal 2018-001173
Application 13/392,871
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
REVERSED;
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
7