Ex Parte Israr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12976193 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

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.
12/976,193 12/22/2010 Ali Israr 10DIS066CORPUSUTL
820.034
6985
77755 7590 07/29/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Ference & Associates LLC
409 Broad Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15143
EXAMINER
NWUGO, OJIAKO K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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 ALI ISRAR and IVAN POUPYREV
___________

Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–24 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
2

Introduction
The invention is directed to systems and methods for “controlling the
characteristics of stimulation devices arranged in a grid topology to generate
virtual stimulation devices and illusory sensations.” Specification ¶ 23.

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
controlling one or more characteristics of a plurality of
actual stimulation devices configured to generate a sensation of
one or more additional virtual stimulation devices perceivable by
a user;
generating one or more tactile sensations using the
plurality of actual stimulation devices and the one or more
additional virtual stimulation devices; and
controlling the one or more tactile sensations such that the
one or more tactile sensations are perceivable by a user at a
plurality of positions.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zeleny (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2011/0148607 A1; published June 23,
2011). Final Rejection 2–6.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zeleny. Final Rejection 7–11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zeleny and Van Den Erenbeemd (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2011/0063208 A1; published Mar. 17, 2011). Final
Rejection 11.

Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
3

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 13, 2014), the Reply Brief
(September 2, 2014), the Answer (mailed July 2, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed November 13, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.

35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection
Appellants argue, “Zeleny appears to be directed solely at the use of
actual micro-step motors alone and apparently does not contemplate
‘generat[ing] a sensation of one or more virtual stimulation devices
perceivable by a user.”’ Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds:
Zeleny contemplates in ¶43 the use of body suit 210 in of [sic]
fig. 1 and ¶38 in virtual reality simulations including as a sensory
avartar [sic] in gaming and healing arts such as massage as [sic]
such a plurality of actual simulation devices (micro step motor
320) configured to generate a sensation of additional virtual
simulation devices (human anatomy in simulated massage of
¶43) perceivable by the user is disclosed by Zeleny.
Final Rejection 2.
Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
4

Appellants further argue that Zeleny does not mention generating a
sensation of one or more additional virtual stimulation devices perceived by
the user as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 14. “Applicant respectfully
submits that this teaching in Zeleny, i.e., use of thousands of micro-step
motors, is completely contrary to Applicant’s teaching of ‘using a small
number of actuators arranged in a sparse two-dimensional grid.’
Specification at p. 17, lines 5 - 7.” We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive because Appellants failed to address the Examiner’s findings that
Zeleny in paragraph 43 discloses virtual simulation devices. Further,
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1
because claim 1 does not recite nor require “using a small number of
actuators arranged in a sparse two-dimensional grid” as Appellants contend.1
See Appeal Brief 15. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 1, as well as, dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17,
20, 21, 23, and 24 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 15.

35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
Claims 2 and 14
Appellants argue that after reviewing the Zeleny’s Figures 2–6, as
well as paragraph 39, that “these portions of Zeleny and indeed the entirety
of [the] reference [discloses] no teaching whatsoever regarding a ‘virtual

1 “[T]he PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into
the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
5

simulation device’ at all, and certainly not one that is created via controlling
[frequency, duration, and intensity] of a plurality of actual simulation
devices.” Appeal Brief 16. The Examiner admits that “Zeleny does not
specifically disclose wherein the one or more characteristics are comprised
of frequency, duration, and intensity.” Final Rejection 7. The Examiner
finds however:
Given that Zeleny discloses ¶39 controlling linear torque and
speed as a function of applied voltage, It [sic] would have been
obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the time of the invention
to for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention [sic]
to control frequency by frequency of applied voltage, duration by
the duration of applied voltage and intensity by the magnitude of
applied voltage.
Final Rejection 7.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive
because Appellants did not point out errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning to persuasively rebut the prima facie case of obviousness
and therefore the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 14 is
sustained.2
Claims 6 and 18
Appellants argue that “Zeleny never mentions anything that
could be construed as a ‘continuous motion illusory tactile sensation’”
and fails to recognize the issue that the vibrating actuators may fail to
produce continuous motion because the distance between the actuators
might be too large. Appeal Brief 17 (citing Specification, page 18,

2 Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellant to present evidence
and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
6

lines 8–14). The Examiner finds that Zeleny does not disclose the
sequentially activation of one or more actual stimulation devices but
finds that “it would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at
the time of the invention to include the sequentially activating one or
more of the plurality of stimulation devices into Zeleny in [order] to
simulate haptic action.” Final Rejection 8.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s modification reasoning
“is merely a conclusion that something would have been obvious without
stating why.” Appeal Brief 18. “Moreover, the fact that Zeleny may, for the
purposes of argumentation, discuss ‘coordination of micro step motors’, it
remains that Zeleny does not speak as to how the ‘coordination’ should
proceed to achieve the specifically claimed limitation.” Appeal Brief 18.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. We do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because activating actual stimulation devices in a non-
descriptive generic sequence is well within the purview of one of ordinary
skill in the art.3 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 6 and 18, as well as, claims 3, 7, 10, 15, and 19 not separately
argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13,
16, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 is affirmed.

3 “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appeal 2014-009376
Application 12/976,193
7

The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14,
15, 18, and 19 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2014).

AFFIRMED