Tissot, Jean-MarcDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 1, 201915102930 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 15/102,930 06/09/2016 Jean-Marc Tissot 17089/146001 8258 22511 7590 11/01/2019 OSHA LIANG L.L.P. TWO HOUSTON CENTER 909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500 HOUSTON, TX 77010 EXAMINER YANG, NAN-YING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2019 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): docketing@oshaliang.com escobedo@oshaliang.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEAN-MARC TISSOT ____________________ Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges. AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–14, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to “a control device with sensory feedback notably for motor vehicles.” Spec. 1:3–4. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is DAV. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 2 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A control device with sensory feedback comprising: a detector of gestures of a hand of a user; a sensory feedback unit connected to the detector of gestures and providing sensory feedback to the user in accordance with the gestures of their hand; wherein the sensory feedback unit includes a unit for blowing a stream of air toward a center of a gesture detection area for guiding the hand of the user to the center of the gesture detection area for detecting the gestures of the hand of the user. Rejections Claims 1, 2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Durham et al. (US 2014/0267049 A1; Sept. 18, 2014) and Kipman et al. (US 2010/0302015 A1; Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 4–6. Claims 3, 4, and 6–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of Durham, Kipman, and other references. Final Act. 6–12. Because we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 1, we do not discuss these rejections further. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Durham and Kipman teaches or suggests “a unit for blowing a stream of air toward a center of a gesture detection area for guiding the hand of the user to the center of the gesture detection area,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 recites “a unit for blowing a stream of air toward a center of a gesture detection area for guiding the hand of the user to the center of the gesture detection area.” Claims 2–13 depend from claim 1. Claim 14 recites “[a] motor vehicle dashboard, comprising a control device with sensory feedback according to claim 1.” The Examiner finds that Durham discloses “a unit . . . for blowing a puff of air toward an area for detecting the gestures of the hand of the user” because it discloses air nozzle 74 used “to blow a puff of air toward the area where the hand ‘22’ is in response to detecting the user interaction.” Final Act. 5 (citing Durham ¶ 11, Fig. 4). The Examiner determines that “Durham does not disclose the unit for blowing a stream of air toward a center of a gesture detection area for guiding the hand of the user to the center of the gesture detection area for detecting the gestures of the hand of the user.” Id. Instead, the Examiner finds that Kipman discloses that part of the limitation because Kipman discloses a “feedback system [that] has a plurality of air emitters to emit air,” and discloses “feedback signals [are] provided to guide the user’s hand to move to the center of the gesture detection area which is the center area within the dashed lines.” Id. (citing Kipman ¶ 82, Figs. 5A, 5B, 6B). Therefore, the Examiner concludes, “it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the device of Durham to have the unit for blowing a stream of air towards the area for detecting gestures of the hand of the user as well, as taught by Kipman, in order to provide non-visual sensory feedback to the user where his body position is in the virtual environment.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Kipman ¶ 17); see also Ans. 4–7. Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 4 Appellant argues that “Kipman is completely silent with respect to providing haptic feedback to guide the user’s hand,” (App. Br. 13) and “with respect to using the air blowing intensity of each of the air nozzles to guide the user’s hand to move to the center of a detection area.” Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning, that Kipman “follow[s] the logic of the instant application, [in using] the air blowing intensity of each of the air nozzles . . . to guide the user’s hand to move within the neighboring physical space,” utilizes impermissible hindsight to combine elements from Durham and Kipman. Reply Br. 3–4; see also Ans. 6 (“Following the logic of the instant application, the air blowing intensity of each of the air nozzles can be used to guide the user’s hand to move within the neighboring physical space.”). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Kipman or Durham teaches or suggests blowing a stream of air for guiding the hand of the user to the center of a gesture detection area. Although Kipman teaches an “air-powered-based haptic feedback system [that] comprises a plurality of air emitters, each emitter configured to independently provide a strength and/or duration of haptic feedback to a place in its neighboring physical space by emitting a burst of air to that space” (¶ 82), it is not clear from the record before us that Kipman teaches using that control to emit bursts of air in a manner that guides the user’s hand toward a desired area. Even if, as the Examiner suggests, “the intensity of the air blowing out from each of [Kipman’s] nozzles may be controlled to be different” (Ans. 6), thus, emitting different strength/duration of bursts from each air emitter, we agree with Appellant that, aside from relying on “the logic of the instant application” (Reply Br. 3), the Examiner has not Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 5 shown Kipman teaches or suggests guiding a user’s hand toward a desired area.2 Durham merely discloses air nozzle 74 is used “to blow a puff of air toward the area where the hand ‘22’ is in response to detecting the user interaction.” Ans. 5–6 (citing Durham ¶ 11, Fig. 4). We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure does not teach or suggest “blowing a stream of air toward a center of a gesture detection area for guiding the hand of the user to the center of the gesture detection area.” Ans. 6.3 2 The Examiner also cites to Figures 5A and 5B of Kipman, finding that Kipman teaches “feedback signals . . . provided to guide the user’s hand to move to the center of the gesture detection area which is the center area within the dashed lines.” Final Act. 5. The embodiment disclosed in those figures, however, relates to a different feedback system comprised of electrodes (Kipman ¶ 70), not the air-based haptic feedback system discussed separately in relation to Figure 6B. Moreover, it is unclear from the cited portions of Kipman whether those figures disclose feedback signals that “guide the user’s hand to move to the center of the gesture detection area.” Final Act. 5. 3 Appellant also argues that Kipman is non-analogous art to the present application because Kipman’s field of endeavor is related to home entertainment systems, not motor vehicle systems, which Appellant claims is the field of endeavor here. App. Br. 17. We disagree. As the Examiner points out, independent claim 1 is broadly directed to a control device with sensory feedback, not specifically to a motor vehicle system. Ans. 8. Moreover, Appellant’s own Specification discusses, albeit negatively, sensory feedback systems “relating to a gaming console,” showing that such systems were at least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that the inventor was attempting to solve. See Spec. 2:12–16. Appeal 2019-000515 Application 15/102,930 6 Accordingly, given the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–14, which incorporate the limitations of claim 1.4 DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5 103 Durham, Kipman 1, 3, 5 2, 4, 6–14 103 Durham, Kipman, Hellig, Hobbs, Jarentie, Dunne, Gilbert, Marti 2, 4, 6–14 Overall Outcome 1–14 REVERSED 4 Appellant identifies claim 14 as a “dependent claim.” App. Br. 10; see also Fee Worksheet (June 9, 2016) (identifying the number of independent claims as 1, not 2). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation