Ex Parte Kildal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

13090382 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2017)

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.
13/090,382 04/20/2011 Johan Kildal 042933/404719 2355
10949 7590 08/09/2017
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
YU, ROYIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN KILDAL
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,3 821
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—8, 13—18, and 20-33.2 Appellant has canceled claims 2, 9-12,
1 Appellant identifies Nokia Technologies Oy as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 In the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, Appellant recites claim
number 23 and 24 twice. App. Br. 17—20. Appellant has acknowledged the
informality and indicated the claim numbers will be corrected at the next
opportunity. App. Br. 4—5. For purposes of this appeal, and clarity, we refer
to the claim numbering set forth in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
for claims 1, 3—8, 13—18, and 20-24, renumber the second set of claims 23
and 24 as claims 25 and 26, and renumber (original) claims 25—31 as claims
27-33.
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
and 19. App. Br. 13, 15—16. We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to providing tactile feedback
in response to detecting user input. Spec., Abstract. In a disclosed
embodiment, force sensing information associated with a force applied to an
input surface (e.g., a touch screen) is detected and a tactile output actuator is
controlled to produce a tactile output based on the detected input force.
Spec. 1:26—33. Thus, as claimed, a sensed input force may result in a first
tactile output being provided to a user and a detected increase in input force
may result in a second tactile output to the user. See Spec. 18:8—17.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
at least to perform:
detect, using a force sensor, force sensing information
associated with force applied to an input surface by an input
object, wherein the force sensor is configured to detect different
levels of force applied to the input surface by the input object;
provide, by one or more actuators, tactile output based on
the detected force sensing information',
2
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
detect, using the force sensor, second force sensing
information associated with an increase of force applied to the
input surface by the input object; and
provide, by the one or more actuators, a second tactile
output based on the detected second force sensing information.
The Examiner’s Rejections3
1. Claims 1,4, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
(US 2010/0302177 Al; Dec. 2, 2010) (“Kim”) and Pihlaja (US
2011/0148774 Al; June 23, 2011) (“Pihlaja”). Final Act. 4-7.
2. Claims 3,5, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Pihlaja, and Armstrong (US 2002/0067241
Al; June 6, 2002) (“Armstrong”). Final Act. 8—9.
3. Claims 6—8, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, and 29-33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Pihlaja, and Song
(US 7,730,402 B2; June 1, 2010). Final Act. 9-13.
4. Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim, Pihlaja, and Griffin (US 2011/0050619 Al;
Mar. 3, 2011). Final Act. 13—14.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kim and Pihlaja
teaches or suggests providing a first tactile output based on detected force
sensing information and further providing a second tactile output based on
3 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1,
3—8, 13—18, and 20-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and a rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
second detected force sensing, wherein the second detected force
information is associated with a detected increase in force applied to an
input surface?
ANALYSIS4
Appellant contends the cited references, either individually or in
combination, fail to teach providing tactile output based on the detected
force sensing information or providing a second tactile output based on the
detected second force sensing information, wherein the second force sensing
information is associated with an increase of force applied to the input
surface. App. Br. 8—10. In particular, Appellant argues the tactile sensors of
Kim are input sensors and, thus, do not provide a tactile output. App. Br. 8—
9 (citing Kim || 19, 40, 50). Although Appellant does admit Kim also
discloses actuators configured to output vibration in order to give a feeling
of click to a user, Appellant argues Kim does not teach the output vibration
is based on the detected force sensing information. App. Br. 9 (citing Kim
143).
Kim is generally directed to “providing a user interface using a touch
input unit comprising a touch screen configured to detect a contact position
and a contact force.” Kim, Abstract. Figure 2a of Kim is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 7, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 2, 2017 (“Reply
Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 2, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the
Final Office Action, mailed October 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
Fig. 2a
Figure 2a of Kim, reproduced above, shows an exemplary embodiment of a
touch input unit. Kim 124. Kim discloses a touch input unit comprising a
touch screen (130), a number of tactile sensors (140) placed under the touch
screen and “configured to detect contact force and output a specific signal,”
and actuators (160) “configured to output vibration in order to give a feeling
of click to a user.” Kim 143. Additionally Kim discloses the user interface
apparatus may include an intensity processing unit. Kim 140, Fig. 1. The
intensity processing unit is configured to acquire the intensity of contact
force applied to the touch screen, based on the output of the tactile sensors
(140). Kim 140. Kim further discloses the “intensity of an output signal of
the tactile sensor 140 is consecutively changed in proportion to the
consecutive changes in the intensity of contact force.” Kim 140.
5
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kim teaches a force sensor (tactile
sensors (140)) is configured to detect different levels of force applied to the
input surface and output force sensing information (i.e., the output of the
tactile sensors (140) to the intensity processing unit) associated with the
force applied to an input surface. Final Act. 5 (citing Kim || 40-41, Figs. 1,
2a, 2b); Ans. 3^4. Additionally, the Examiner finds actuators (160) provide
a tactile output (i.e., an output vibration) to the user based on the detected
force sensing information. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3^4 (citing Kim ]f]f 40, 43,
Figs. 1, 2a). As described by Kim, the output vibration is provided as a
feeling of a click to a user such as when the user touches the screen and a
force is detected. See Kim 143. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
tactile output is based on the detected force sensing information.
Regarding providing a second tactile output based on second force
sensing information associated with an increase in force being applied to the
input surface, Appellant acknowledges Pihlaja discloses detecting when a
tactile input is increased by a determined amount or at a determined rate, but
Appellant argues Pihlaja fails to teach providing a second tactile output
based on the detected increase in force. App. Br. 10 (citing Pihlaja Tflf 30,
34, 38, 45—46). Rather, Appellant contends Pihlaja merely provides a
vibration output as a form of non-visual feedback and that the haptic signal
(i.e., tactile output) is dependent upon the movement of the indicator and not
based on the increase in force. App. Br. 10 (citing Pihlaja Tflf 34, 38, 45 46).
Pihlaja is generally directed to handling tactile inputs to a touch
screen. Pihlaja, Abstract, 11. Pihlaja discloses embodiments of a touch
sensitive display comprising an associated force sensor. Pihlaja 130.
6
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
Pihlaja describes a scenario wherein the completion of a touch input is
detected “when it is detected that a user applies the tactile input with force
. . . greater than a threshold level, or when the incident force is detected to
have increased by more than a predetermined amount or at more than a
predetermined rate.” Pihlaja 130. Pihlaja also teaches a vibration module
may be included to provide non-visual feedback (i.e., tactile output) to a
user. Pihlaja 134.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Pihlaja’s tactile input and
associated force sensor are configured to sense an increase of force applied
to the input surface teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed second force
sensing information. Final Act. 5 (citing Pihlaja 130). The Examiner
further finds:
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to provide [the] Kim system
with the concepts of a second force sensing information
associated with an increase of force applied to the input surface
as taught by [Pihlaja], in order to prevent triggering an undesired
operation from accidental] applied force to the input surface.
Final Act. 6. Additionally, the Examiner explains Kim teaches the output
signal of tactile sensor (140) changes in intensity with changes in the
intensity of applied force and that the detected changes may also correspond
to the second force sensing information. Ans. 3^4. Further, the Examiner
finds it would have been obvious to output vibrations to the user
“accordingly.” Ans. 3.
Given the above disclosures and suggestions of Kim, we find no error
in the Examiner’s reasoning that configuring the actuator to provide
vibrations to the user “accordingly,” i.e., in relation to the changing (e.g.,
increasing) intensity of the contact force, would have been obvious to one of
7
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
ordinary skill in the art. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Furthermore,
Appellant does not persuasively or specifically rebut the above findings and
reasoning of the Examiner in the Reply Brief. See generally Reply Br. 1—2.
Also, Appellant asserts the Examiner suggests the output signal may
appear as a pattern of contact force indicates the feedback may be visual
rather than tactile. Reply Br. 2 (referring to Ans. 3—4). We disagree. Read
in context, the Examiner’s word choice of “appears” does not suggest the
feedback is visual, but rather the changes in the output signal correspond
with detected changes of contact force.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 14 and 20, which recite similar limitations and were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 8—11. Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 3—8, 13, 15—18, and 21—33, which depend
therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 11—12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—8, 13—18,
and 20—33.
8
Appeal 2017-004895
Application 13/090,382
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
9