Ex Parte Lacroix et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2018

11697374 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/697,374 04/06/2007
34300 7590 07/17/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Lacroix
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IMM241 6244
EXAMINER
CASTIAUX, BRENT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
kts _imm_ docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LACROIX and DANNY GRANT
Appeal2018-000412
Application 11/697,374
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, 12-15 and 18-30.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Immersion
Corporation. (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Claims 7-11, 16, and 17 have been previously canceled. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000412
Application 11/697,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to haptic control technology (Spec.
,r 2). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving an input signal having haptic information and
multimedia data, the input signal formatted in a first format,
and wherein the multimedia data does not comprise encoded
haptic information;
determining haptic information from the input signal;
determining a resonant frequency associated with an
actuator in a haptic device;
generating an actuator signal based at least in part on the
resonant frequency and the haptic information;
generating an output signal comprising the multimedia
data and the actuator signal, the output signal formatted in a
second format, wherein the actuator signal portion of the output
signal is encoded onto a carrier wave that is then encoded as
frequency modulated data on an audio portion of the
multimedia data of the output signal, and
transmitting the output signal to an actuator.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1---6, 12-15, and 18-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Weiner (US 2004/0125120 Al; Pub. July 1,
2004), Tierling (US 2003/0057934 Al; Pub. Mar. 27, 2003), and Mase et al.
(US 2005/0179565 Al; Pub. Aug. 18, 2005 ("Mase"). See Final Act. 3-18.
2
Appeal2018-000412
Application 11/697,374
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Weiner discloses all the
recited elements of the claim except for "determining a resonant frequency
associated with an actuator in a haptic device" and "generating an actuator
signal based at least in part on the resonant frequency and the haptic
information," for which the Examiner relies on Paragraph 21 of Tierling.
See Final Act. 3---6. The Examiner further relies on Paragraph 244 of Mase
as disclosing a sound file in .WA V format which meets the recited "wherein
the actuator signal portion of the output signal is encoded onto a carrier
wave that is encoded as frequency modulated data on an audio portion of the
multimedia data of the output signal." See Final Act. 6-7.
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection is in error because "the
Office Action appears to cite simply to the existence of a . WA V file" and
does not establish how the actuator signal portion is encoded. App. Br. 13-
14. Appellants argue the cited portion of Mase describes the existence of a
. WA V file with no specific discussion of how the file is encoded or relates to
the recited "wherein the actuator signal portion of the output signal is
encoded onto a carrier wave that is then encoded as frequency modulated
data on an audio portion of the multimedia data of the output signal." App.
Br. 14. Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner's statement that
audio files are inherently frequency modulated is not based on any evidence
or support and in fact, such files may be modulated based on different
schemes. App. Br. 15. 3
3 We do not address Appellants' other contentions because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
3
Appeal2018-000412
Application 11/697,374
In response, the Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed claim limitation "is interpreted as stating 'an
actuator signal is an audio portion of an output signal' since the signal is
simply encoded onto a frequency modulated data signal." Ans. 19-20. The
Examiner further explains:
Audio signals, such as . WA V files, are inherently frequency
modulated as the sounds which are audible to humans are
formed by different levels of frequency. Weiner teaches a
combined data stream of a sensory package which contains
instructions for the different types of tactile response, such as
an audio device (Weiner, Figures 2-4, ,r,r [0043, 0044, and
0065]). As explained in the rejection above, the prior art of
Mase teaches the .WA V file (Mase, ,r [0244]), which is a
frequency modulated sound file, in combination with the prior
art of Weiner which teaches the audio device to output a tactile
response (Weiner, ,r [0045]). The .WA V file of Mase teaches
the audio file on which Weiner may use to store the tactile
feedback for the audio device.
Ans. 20. The Examiner further finds the disputed limitation is suggested by
"the audio device of Weiner that plays a generated . WA V sound file, of
Mase, to provide a tactile response as output." Id.
Based on a review of Mase, we are persuaded by Appellants'
contention that the Examiner has not explained how the sound file formatted
in . WA V format meets the claimed "the actuator signal portion of the output
signal is encoded onto a carrier wave that is then encoded as frequency
modulated data on an audio portion of the multimedia data." As further
pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 3), an audio file is not inherently
encoded as frequency modulated data because "an audio file can be encoded
using any number of different modulation schemes ( e.g., amplitude
modulation), and thus this is not inherent as the Examiner suggests." In
4
Appeal2018-000412
Application 11/697,374
other words, the Examiner has not explained how the teachings of Mase with
respect to a sound data file having . WA V format relates to any encoding
scheme recited in claim 1 or discloses encoding the output signal onto a
carrier wave that is then encoded as frequency modulated data.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 18 and 20, which recite similar limitations. The
Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art that
would make up for the above-mentioned deficiency. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20, as well as claims 2---6, 12-15
and 19-29 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 12-15 and
18-30.
REVERSED
5