Elwha LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020002706 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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.
14/734,863 06/09/2015 Jesse R. Cheatham III 46076/197 6022
103746 7590 01/04/2021
Elwha LLC c/o Polsinelli PC
Kory D. Christensen
Three Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
ARMSTRONG, JONATHAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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):
ISFDocketInbox@intven.com
USPT@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JESSE R. CHEATHAM III, RODERICK A. HYDE, MURIEL Y.
ISHIKAWA, JORDIN T. KARE, CRAIG J. MUNDIE, NATHAN P.
MYHRVOLD, ROBERT C. PETROSKI, ERIC D. RUDDER, DESNEY S.
TAN, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, CHARLES WHITMER, ANDREW
WILSON, JEANNETTE M. WING, LOWELL L. WOOD JR., and
VICTORIA Y.H. WOOD
____________

Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 12–14, 24, 25, 28, 29, 42, 49–51, 61–63,

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references the Specification (“Spec.,” filed June 9,
2015), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 2, 2019, Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 21, 2019), Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 23, 2019),
and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 24, 2020). Appellant identifies
Elwha LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

2
65, 87–89, 91–96, 100, 101, 104–106, 120, and 132.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED INVENTON
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for using
ultrasound to induce a haptic sensation in or on a user, such as a user of an
entertainment system. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 76. The system or method uses a dual
modality sensor to generate image date for use in directing the ultrasound
toward a portion of interest of an object such as the user’s hand. Spec. ¶¶ 9–
11. A sensor having “dual modalities may be used to generate a coarse (i.e.,
lower resolution) image of the entire object using a first modality, identify
portions of interest on the object, and then generate a fine (i.e., higher
resolution) image of the portions of interest using a second modality.” Spec.
¶ 76.
Claims 1, 62, and 132 are independent. Claim 62, reproduced below
with bracketed notations added, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
62. A method for providing haptic feedback associated
with the usage of an entertainment device, comprising:
[(a)] receiving, via a radiation receiver, radiation
reflected by a user located within a region, wherein the radiation
is transmitted toward the user according to a first modality of two
different imaging modalities operating in different frequency
ranges;

2 Claims 9, 11, 15–23, 26, 27, 30–41, 43–48, 52–60, 64, 66–86, 90, 97–99,
102, 103, 107–119, and 121–131 have been cancelled. Appeal Br., Claims
App’x.
Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

3
[(b)] generating positional data that identifies a position
of the user relative to the region using the received radiation;
[(c)] identifying a target site on or in the user suitable for
receiving haptic feedback based on the radiation reflected by the
user in the first imaging modality, wherein the target site is
imaged according to a second imaging modality of the two
different imaging modalities for inducing a haptic sensation at
the target site in response to identifying the target site through
the first imaging modality;
[(d)] transmitting a first ultrasonic pulse along a first
vector relative to the user;
[(e)] transmitting a second ultrasonic pulse along a
second vector relative to the user, wherein the first ultrasonic
pulse and the second ultrasonic pulse are configured to intersect
proximate the identified site of the user and generate an acoustic
wave at a beat frequency of the first and second ultrasonic pulses;
and
[(f)] selecting frequencies of the first and second
ultrasonic pulses such that the frequency of the acoustic wave
induces the haptic sensation at the identified site of the user.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 10, 12–14, 24, 25, 29, 42, 49–51, 61–63, 65, 87–89, 91,
92, 94, 96, 100, 101, 104–106, 120, and 132 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kipman (US 2010/0302015 A1, pub. Dec. 2,
2010) and Wilson et al., Perception of Ultrasonic Haptic Feedback on the
Hand: Localisation and Apparent Motion, Research Gate 1133–42 (CHI
2014) (“Wilson”).3

3 We treat the Examiner’s omission of claim 89 from the rejection heading at
page 2 of the Final Office Action as inadvertent error. See Final Act. 9
(rejecting claim 89).
Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

4
Claims 28, 93, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kipman, Wilson, and Nick Strobler, Doppler Effect,
Electromagnetic Radiation, May 2001,
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s10.htm ( “Strobel”).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 62, and 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because
Kipman does not teach or suggest “identifying a target site on or in the user
for receiving haptic feedback based on the radiation reflected by the user in
the first imaging modality, wherein the target site is imaged according to a
second imaging modality of the two different imaging modalities,” as recited
in claim 62, limitation (c), and similarly recited in claims 1 and 132. Appeal
Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 2–4.
In rejecting claims 1, 62, and 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner finds that Kipman teaches the argued limitation. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Kipman ¶¶ 70, 97, 103, Abstract, Fig. 9). Kipman describes a system
for presenting a three-dimensional (3-D) virtual environment to a user and
providing non-visual sensory feedback to the user for interactions that user
makes with virtual objects in the 3-D virtual environment. Kipman Abstract,
¶ 70, Figs. 5A, 5B. A depth camera (or capture device) captures the user’s
position data as a user moves through physical space, and this data is
translated to user’s position data in the virtual environment. See Abstract,
¶ 70. When the user’s position or movement causes the user to touch a
virtual object in the virtual environment, haptic feedback corresponding to
touching the virtual object is provided to the user through a haptic feedback
device worn by the user. Id.
Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

5
Paragraphs 70, 97, and 103 provide additional details regarding the
haptic feedback device. Paragraph 70 describes that a haptic feedback
device worn on a user’s hand has a plurality of electrodes, each electrode
being a haptic feedback sub-device that is configured to provide haptic
feedback to a different part of the user’s hand. For example, the haptic
feedback device can instruct sub-devices corresponding to a user’s fingers to
provide haptic feedback, so that the user’s fingers receive haptic feedback,
but not the entire hand. Id. ¶ 97. In other embodiments, the haptic feedback
device provides haptic feedback to the entire user, a sub-part of the user,
such as a right hand, a right index finger or a tip of a right index finger. Id.
¶ 103. By using a plurality of electrodes at a plurality of locations, a
different amount of feedback is provided to each location to more accurately
simulate interaction with a virtual object. Id.
The Examiner finds that Kipman’s paragraph 70 and Abstract teaches
identifying a target site suitable for receiving haptic feedback based on a
first imaging modality. Final Act 3. The Examiner further finds that
paragraph 103 of Kipman teaches imaging the target site according to a
second imaging modality. Id. at 3–4. Yet, as described above, Kipman at
paragraph 103 teaches providing haptic feedback to a user at different levels
of granularity via a haptic feedback device — not imaging the target site,
much less imaging the target site according to a second imaging modality
and in response to identifying the target site through a first imaging
modality, as required by claims 1, 62, and 132.
In the Answer, the Examiner additionally relies on paragraphs 32, 64,
and 65 of Kipman as teaching the argued claim limitation. Ans. 5–6.
Kipman describes at paragraph 32 that capture device 20 is “configured to
Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

6
capture video with depth information,” at paragraphs 64 that a skeletal
mapping of a user is generated from capture device 20, and at paragraph 65
that a user’s motion or pose is captured and parsed. The Examiner finds that
paragraphs 64 and 65 of Kipman teach capturing image data based on a first
imaging modality, and paragraph 32 teaches a second imaging modality.
Ans. 5–6. Yet, the cited portions of Kipman do not describe or suggest that
capturing video with depth information, as set forth at paragraph 32, occurs
in response to identifying a target site through a first imaging modality
(ostensibly the imaging used to generate a skeletal mapping, as described by
paragraphs 64 and 65), as required by the claim language. Further, the cited
portions do not disclose or suggest that capturing video with depth
information, as described at paragraph 32, is a second imaging modality
operating at a different frequency than a first imaging modality used to
identify a target site, as required by the claim language. Accordingly, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how Kipman teaches or suggests
limitation (c), as recited in claim 62, and similarly recited in claims 1 and
132.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 62,
and 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We do not sustain the rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103 of the dependent claims for similar reasons.

Appeal 2020-002706
Application 14/734,863

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§ 
Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10, 12–14,
24, 25, 29, 42, 49–
51, 61–63, 65, 87–
89, 91, 92, 94, 96,
100, 101, 104–
106, 120, 132
103  Kipman, Wilson
1–8, 10, 12–14,
24, 25, 29, 42, 49–
51, 61–63, 65, 87–
89, 91, 92, 94, 96,
100, 101, 104–
106, 120, 132
28, 93, 95 103 Kipman, Wilson, Strobel 28, 93, 95
Overall Outcome
1–8, 10, 12–14,
24, 25, 28, 29, 42,
49–51, 61–63, 65,
87–89, 91–96,
100, 101, 104–
106, 120, 132

REVERSED