10944628 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2013)

Ex Parte Braun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2013

10944628 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2013)

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. 10/944,628 09/17/2004 Adam C. Braun IMM105C 3002 34300 7590 12/13/2013 PATENT DEPARTMENT (51851) KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 WEST FOURTH STREET WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101 EXAMINER NGUYEN, JIMMY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2696 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ADAM C. BRAUN, LOUIS B. ROSENBERG, DAVID F. MOORE, KENNETH M. MARTIN, and ALEX S. GOLDENBERG ____________ Appeal 2011-000527 Application10/944,628 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000527 Application 10/944,628 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 16-36 and 38-56, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 16. An interface device for providing directional haptic feedback, the interface device comprising: a housing; at least one sensor configured to detect input on the interface device; and at least two actuator assemblies coupled to the housing, each of the at least two actuator assemblies including a separate inertial mass, wherein the at least two actuator assemblies are positioned in the housing to cause a directional inertial sensation corresponding to a location between the at least two actuator assemblies in the housing, and wherein each of the at least two actuator assemblies is configured to receive a separate harmonic control signal, each separate harmonic control signal having a different magnitude than the other separate harmonic control signals, each separate harmonic control signal based at least in part on the same waveform, the different magnitude configured to provide the directional inertial sensation. Prior Art Chen US 5,742,278 Apr. 21, 1998 Ogata US 6,001,014 Dec. 14, 1999 Goldenberg US 2004/0056840 A1 Mar. 25, 2004 Braun US 6,864,877 B2 Mar. 8, 2005 Appeal 2011-000527 Application 10/944,628 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 16-36 and 38-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Goldenberg. Claims 16-36 and 38-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogata and Chen. Claims 16, 19, 30, 32, 40, 43, 48, 50, 55, and 56 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 23, and 26 of Braun. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 16-36 and 38-56 Claim 16 recites a device with two actuator assemblies to cause a directional inertial sensation corresponding to a location between the assemblies. Paragraph 85 of Goldenberg discloses a device with two actuator assemblies to cause a directional force on the device. Appellants contend that the directional force of Goldenberg causes movement of the device in a particular direction, rather than a directional inertial sensation corresponding to a location between the assemblies. App. Br. 16-17. The Examiner finds that Goldenberg describes a device with two motors of the same size (Ans. 4, 17, citing ¶ 32) that each receive a separate control signal (Ans. 4, citing ¶ 24), such as two control signals which are in phase with different magnitudes (Ans. 4, 17, citing Figs. 5 and 6). The Examiner further finds that applying the control signals of Figures 5 and 6 to the two motors rotates the two motors in phase with each other to produce “a directional inertial sensation” within the meaning of claim 16 (Ans. 4-5, 17, citing ¶ 85). Appeal 2011-000527 Application 10/944,628 4 Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Appellants also have not provided a definition of “directional inertial sensation” that excludes the directional force disclosed by Goldenberg. We agree with the Examiner that Goldenberg discloses a device with two actuator assemblies to cause a directional inertial sensation corresponding to a location between the assemblies within the meaning of claim 16. We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants do not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims 17-36 and 38-56 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 16-36 and 38-56 Because we affirm the rejection of claims 16-36 and 38-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we decline to reach the merits of the cumulative rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Obviousness-type double patenting rejection We decline to reach the merits of the Examiner’s provisional double patenting rejection because the claims need to be evaluated in light of the terminal disclaimer filed by Appellants as discussed on page 2 of the Reply Brief. See Ex parte Jerg, 2012 WL 1375142 at 3 (BPAI 2012) (informative) (“Panels have the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional obviousness- Appeal 2011-000527 Application 10/944,628 5 type double-patenting rejections.”) (citing Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)). DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16-36 and 38-56 is affirmed. We do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16-36 and 38-56 as being unpatentable over Ogata and Chen. We also do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 16, 19, 30, 32, 40, 43, 48, 50, 55, and 56. 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 msc