Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2022

2021001904 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2022)

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. 16/251,423 01/18/2019 Junichi Hashimoto 036433.04046 4970 38485 7590 03/25/2022 ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP - New York 1717 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5344 EXAMINER LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2022 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): patentdocket@arentfox.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JUNICHI HASHIMOTO, JUN ENDO, and KENTARO USUI ________________ Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to a vibration structure which generates vibrations, a vibration device, and a tactile sense presentation device. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A vibration structure comprising: a frame member having an opening therein; 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Murata Manufacturing Company, Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 2 a vibration part within the opening in the frame member; a support part that connects the vibration part and the frame member and supports the vibration part within the opening in the frame member; a film that deforms in a planar direction in response to voltage application; and a first connection member that connects the film to the vibration part and a second connection member that connects the film to the frame member such that the vibration part vibrates in the planar direction when the film deforms in the planar direction. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hirata (US 2013/0266461 A1; published Oct. 10, 2013) and Takeuchi (US 2015/0071797 A1; published Mar. 12, 2015). Final Act. 2-8. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hirata, Takeuchi, and Kim (US 2015/0318462 A1; published Nov. 5, 2015). Final Act. 8-11. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hirata, Takeuchi, and Laitinen (US 2019/0302948 A1; PCT filed June 9, 2017). Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Hirata teaches applying a voltage to enable piezoelectric element 3B to vibrate vibration plate 3A in a vertical direction and Takeuchi teaches connecting piezoelectric film 40 to top plate 37, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a film that deforms in a planar Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 3 direction in response to voltage application” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-5 (citing Hirata ¶ 41, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B; Takeuchi, Figs. 5A, 5B); Final Act. 3-4 (citing Hirata ¶ 41, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 5; Takeuchi, Fig. 4). Moreover, the Examiner finds Takeuchi teaches side plate 38 connects piezoelectric film 40 to top plate 37 and protruding portions 62 contact the inner wall of housing 17 such that protruding portions and side plate 38 enable top plate 37 to deform in the planar direction, which the Examiner maps to the limitation a first connection member that connects the film to the vibration part and a second connection member that connects the film to the frame member such that the vibration part vibrates in the planar direction when the film deforms in the planar direction recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-6; Final Act. 4 (citing Takeuchi ¶ 54, Figs. 2, 4, 5A, 5B). The Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) would have combined Hirata and Takeuchi to increase flow and vibration. Final Act. 4 (citing Takeuchi ¶¶ 17, 56). Appellant argues Hirata and Takeuchi merely teach bending in the vertical/linear direction, but fail to teach a film that deforms in a planar direction in response to voltage because a skilled artisan would understand that “planar direction” means longitudinal direction. Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-6. In addition, Appellant argues Takeuchi merely teaches side plate 38 connecting to piezoelectric element 50 to plate 37 and protruding portions 67 that connect to housing 17, but fails to teach a first connection member that connects the film to the vibration part and a second connection member that connects the film to the frame member. Appeal Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that the combination of Hirata and Takeuchi would cause Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 4 Hirata to cease to function for its intended purpose because the piezoelectric element 3B and the disc portion 24 would be restricted from planar direction movement due to being anchored to disc portion 24 and the frame portion 23. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5-6. We disagree with Appellant. As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “planar” is defined as a “form of a plane.” Ans. 3. Also, Appellant’s annotated Figure 3 is not in the originally filed Specification. Id. Therefore, Appellant’s argument that “planar direction” should be “longitudinal” is unavailing. In addition, “longitudinal” is not recited in claim 1. “[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (CCPA 1982) (cited at In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d at 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Hirata teaches applying a voltage to enable piezoelectric element 3B (i.e., in response to voltage application) to vibrate vibration plate 3A in a vertical direction (i.e., in a planar direction) and Takeuchi teaches connecting piezoelectric film 40 (i.e., a film that deforms in a planar direction) to top plate 37 and vibrates vertically (i.e., in response to voltage application), which teaches the limitation “a film that deforms in a planar direction in response to voltage application” recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-5 (citing Hirata ¶ 41, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B; Takeuchi, Figs. 5A, 5B); Final Act. 3-4 (citing Hirata ¶ 41, Figs. 2, 3A, 3B, 5; Takeuchi, Fig. 4). We, therefore, disagree with Appellant’s argument that the combination of Hirata and Takeuchi would cause Hirata to cease to function for its intended purpose because the piezoelectric element 3B and the disc portion 24 would be restricted from planar direction movement due to being anchored to disc portion 24 and the frame portion 23. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 5 Br. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that a PHOSITA would have combined Hirata and Takeuchi to increase flow and vibration. Final Act. 4 (citing Takeuchi ¶¶ 17, 56). As a result, the Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Takeuchi merely teaches side plate 38 connecting to piezoelectric element 50 to plate 37 and protruding portions 67 that connect to housing 17, but fails to teach a first connection member that connects the film to the vibration part and a second connection member that connects the film to the frame member. Appeal Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 6. Takeuchi teaches side plate 38 (i.e., first connection member) connects piezoelectric film 40 to top plate 37 (i.e., vibration part) (i.e., film 40 is connected to top plate 37 via side plate 38; thus, Takeuchi teaches the limitation “that connects film to the vibration part”) and protruding portions 62 (i.e., second connection member) contact the inner wall of housing 17 (i.e., frame member) (i.e., protruding portions 62 connects film to housing 17; thus, Takeuchi teaches “that connects the film to the frame member”) such that protruding portions and side plate 38 enable top plate 37 to deform in the planar direction, which teaches a first connection member that connects the film to the vibration part and a second connection member that connects the film to the frame member such that the vibration part vibrates in the planar direction when the film deforms in the planar direction recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-6; Final Act. 4 (citing Takeuchi ¶ 54, Figs. 2, 4, Appeal 2021-001904 Application 16/251,423 6 5A, 5B). Appellant does not argue claims 2-18 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 3-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; and (2) dependent claims 2-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15-17 103 Hirata, Takeuchi, 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 15-17 8, 9, 12, 14 103 Hirata, Takeuchi, Kim 8, 9, 12, 14 18 103 Hirata, Takeuchi, Laitinen 18 Overall Outcome 1-18