Ex Parte Lu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

13117887 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/117,887 05/27/2011
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/LKGlobal
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
08/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KanghuaLu
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.
H0029256 (002.2608) 8521
EXAMINER
LU, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KANGHUA LU
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "a user interface with haptic feedback."
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A user interface, comprising:
a display element configured to display a visual image;
a touch screen panel coupled to the display element and
configured to receive a user input, wherein the touch screen panel
is mounted within the user interface relative to the display
element with floating edges;
a controller coupled to the touch screen panel and configured
to generate a feedback signal based on the user input;
a first actuator coupled to the controller and the touch screen
panel and configured to operate in a first mode based on the
feedback signal; and
a second actuator coupled to the controller and the touch
screen panel and configured to operate in a second mode based
on the feedback signal,
wherein the first mode includes a first pattern of nodes and
the second modes includes a second pattern of nodes, the first
pattern of nodes and the second pattern of nodes being non-
overlapping relative to one another on the touch screen panel.
1 Appellant identifies Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Schena et al.
Colgate et al.
Camp et al.
US 2005/0219206 Al
US 2009/0284485 Al
US 2011/0310028 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Oct. 6, 2005
Nov. 19, 2009
Dec. 22, 2011
1. Claims 1, 3-12, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camp and Colgate. (See Final Act. 2-
10.)
2. Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Camp, Colgate, and Schena. (See Final Act. 10-11.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS2
Appellant argues that the rejections are in error because "Camp and
Colgate would not be combined as proposed in the Office Action." (App.
Br. 16, emphasis omitted.)
2 Although Appellant raises additional contentions of error, we do not reach
them because our resolution of this issue is dispositive.
3
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that Camp "discloses a device in which a first haptic
transducer vibrates the display and a second haptic transducer determines the
location of a touch based on the interference with the vibration," and that
"[i]t is unclear how or why the modified harmonic vibrations of Colgate
would benefit the locating mechanism of Camp," because "the user in Camp
does not need to 'feel' the haptic signal." (App. Br. 15-16, emphases
omitted.) Appellant concludes that there would have been "no advantage or
benefit to the modifications from Colgate." (Id., emphasis omitted.)
The Examiner responds as follows:
While Camp and Colgate use the harmonic frequencies for dif-
ferent applications, the fundamental teachings of how generating
vibrations on a display translates to different modes of operations
are the same. Camp teaches different harmonic frequencies (in
figure 1 O); it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
that each of those harmonic frequencies translates to a different
mode of operation with non-overlapping modes of operation.
Thus, Colgate merely makes obvious the distinction between dif-
ferent modes of operations using the different harmonic frequen-
cies.
(Ans. 13.)
Even though "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference" but rather "what the combined teachings of [those]
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art," In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981), we agree with Appellant that the
combination is not supported by an "articulated reasoning with [a] rational
underpinning," KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
4
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
Camp teaches a method for detecting the location of a user's touch on
a display screen. "The method comprises vibrating a display on an
electronic device, detecting variations in the vibrations caused by a user
touch, and determining a location of the user touch on the display based on
the detected variations." (Camp i-f 8.) Paragraphs 70-71 cited by the
Examiner describe an embodiment that employs two haptic transducers.
One is operated in a drive mode to vibrate the display in response to
detecting a user's touch. The other is in a sense mode to sense the
amplitudes of the standing waves as modified by the user's touch. Then, the
roles of the transducers are reversed, with the second operating in drive
mode and the first operating in sense mode. Because the touch modifies the
standing waves in a predictable manner, a controller can use the information
from the sensors to compute the location of the touch.
Colgate teaches a haptic device with "actuators for vibrating the
substrate in a multiplicity of higher resonant modes, each of which has a
high enough frequency to be inaudible and high enough amplitude to create
a friction reduction effect at a plurality of vibrating regions on the substrate
surface." (Colgate i-f 3.) Cited paragraph 13 describes an embodiment in
which
a touch surface and one or more actuators for vibrating the sub-
strate in one or more higher resonant modes in a manner to es-
tablish an "nxm" multimodal pattern on the substrate surface
wherein n is greater than 1 and m is greater than 1, wherein some
of the nodal lines of the pattern intersect, and wherein the reso-
nant frequency is high enough to be inaudible and the amplitude
is high enough to create a friction reduction effect at a plurality
of vibrating regions defined by nodal lines.
(Colgate ,-r 13.)
5
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
We fail to see how or why "creat[ing] a friction reduction effect at a
plurality of vibrating regions defined by nodal lines" would be a benefit in
Camp, which is using modifications of the amplitudes of standing waves to
determine the location of a touch. As Appellant points out (Reply Br. 7),
Camp's user is not intended to feel the haptic signal, so there would be no
reason to modify with Colgate's teachings. Moreover, it seems that
Colgate's method of creating nodal lines across the display would impair
Camp's sensing, because a touch on a nodal line, where the amplitude is
zero (see Colgate i-f 25 ("The dashed lines represent nodal lines where the
amplitude of vibration is zero.")), would not create a change in amplitude
that could be sensed by Camp's method (see Camp i-fi-164--65).
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 over Camp and Colgate.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Claims 1, 15, and 19
Independent Claims 1, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Colgate.
Regarding claim 1, we find that Colgate teaches or suggests each
limitation, as follows:
"[a] user interface . .. "
Colgate describes haptic devices providing user interfaces. (See,
e.g., Colgate Fig. 3; id. i-fi-130, 69 ("[T]he transparent haptic device
can be placed in front of graphical display 30 and integrated with a
fingertip position sensor of a type known in the art .... The
frictional properties of the substrate touch surface 10s can be
coordinated with the graphical objects/images of the display 30
seen through it").)
6
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
"a display element configured to display a visual image"
Item 30 in Fig. 3 is a graphical display configured to display a
visual image. (See, e.g., Colgate Fig. 3; id. i-f 68.)
"a touch screen panel coupled to the display element and configured to
receive a user input, wherein the touch screen panel is mounted within
the user interface relative to the display element with floating edges"
Item 10 in Figure 3 is a transparent substrate with a touch surface
10s, where "[f]inger position sensors such as photodiodes PD in a
linear sensor array (x-y array) can be disposed on the bezel
housing 20 to sense position of the user's finger or stylus."
(Colgate i-f 68; see id. Fig. 3.) Some embodiments employ "flexure
elements 92 [to] act somewhat like a hinge joint, permitting fairly
free rotation (twisting) at the edges of the plate substrate 10." (Id.
i-f 7 5.) The broadest reasonable construction of "floating edges"
would encompass edges with "fairly free rotation."3 Additionally,
the reference states that the "outer perimeter (part or all)" of the
substrate "is glued or otherwise fastened in an inner frame." (Id.)
One of skill in the art would understand that a display element
having only "part" of the outer perimeter glued would mean that
other parts, including edges, could float.
"a controller coupled to the touch screen panel and configured to
generate a feedback signal based on the user input"
The Control Unit CU is coupled to the panel though the actuators
and drives them to generate a feedback signal based on user input.
(See Colgate Fig. 3; id. i-f 68 ("Control unit CU also can be hidden
under the bezel housing and connected electrically to the actuators
PP and to the finger position sensors PD to provide position
feedback to a microprocessor incorporated in or integrated as part
of the control unit."); id. i-f 16 ("[T]he haptic device can further
3 The application's minimal disclosure of "floating edge" merely contrasts it
with a "fixed edge." (See Spec. i-f 44 ("The resonant frequency for each
mode may be a function of the material of the touch screen panel 230, the
mounting arrangement (e.g., fixed or floating edges), the dimensions of the
touch screen panel 230, and other considerations").) An edge with "fairly
free rotation" is not "fixed" and, thus, is "floating."
7
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
include a finger or stylus position sensor and a control device to
change resonant frequency mode of oscillation from one mode to
another in response to a sensed position of a user's appendage (e.g.
finger or stylus held by a user) proximate a nodal line on the
substrate surface"); id. i-f 62 ("The invention envisions a
modification to this algorithm which uses the fingertip velocity to
estimate when the fingertip can be expected to cross a nodal line
and switch modes only when a crossing is imminent").)
"a first actuator coupled to the controller and the touch screen panel and
configured to operate in a first mode based on the feedback signal" and
"a second actuator coupled to the controller and the touch screen panel
and configured to operate in a second mode based on the feedback
signal"
First and second piezoelectric actuators PP are coupled to the
controller and the panel. (See, e.g., Colgate Fig. 3; id. i-f 68.) They
are configured to operate in first and second modes, as discussed
below.
"wherein the first mode includes a first pattern of nodes and the second
modes includes a second pattern of nodes, the first pattern of nodes and
the second pattern of nodes being non-overlapping relative to one
another on the touch screen panel"
Colgate teaches the use of different modes to induce first and
second patterns of nodes that are non-overlapping, for the purpose
of preventing dead spots. (See Colgate i-f 15 ("In another
illustrative embodiment of the invention, the one or more vibrators
is/are vibrated concurrently at two or more different resonant
frequencies of the substrate. Dead spots of zero vibration
corresponding to intersection of nodal lines are thereby avoided or
minimized.").) This is the same mechanism described by
Appellant. (See Spec. i-f 38 ("Since the nodes 340 and 350 do not
overlap, the haptic response is generated over the entire touch
screen panel 230, e.g., there are no 'dead spots' because the first
actuator 240 generates a response at the nodes 350 associated with
the second actuator 250 and vice versa.").)
Independent claim 15 is directed to a method corresponding to the
user interface of claim 1, and independent claim 19 is directed to a "method
8
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
for designing a user interface," also corresponding to the user interface of
claim 1. For the reasons described above, these claims also read on, and are
therefore anticipated by, Colgate.
Dependent Claims
We have entered a new ground of rejection for independent claims 1,
15, and 19. We leave it to the Examiner to consider the patentability of
dependent claims 3-14, 16-18, and 20 in light of our findings and
conclusions regarding the independent claims. 4
The fact that we did not enter new grounds of rejection for the
dependent claims should not be construed to mean that we consider the
dependent claims to be directed to patentable subject matter or to be
patentable over the prior art of record.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Camp and Colgate are reversed.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1, 15, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Colgate.
4 We have not considered the patentability of the claims in light of materials
submitted with Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 21, 2016
and May 11, 2016, during the pendency of this appeal.
9
Appeal2015-005480
Application 13/117,887
NEW GROUND
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review"
and that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
rejected claims:
(1) reopen prosecution by submitting an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected, or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner; or
(2) request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board
upon the same Record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
10