Ex Parte Olsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

12756068 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
12/756,068 04/07/2010 Mark S. Olsson SEEK 09-156-201 9872
13235 7590 04/28/2017
Steven P Tietsiwnrth
EXAMINER
3527 Talbot St. TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
San Diego, CA 92106
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
tietsworth@cox.net
steven. tietsworth @ seescan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK S. OLSSON, RAY MEREWETHER,
LONI M. CANEPA, ALEXANDER L. WARREN,
AMOS H. JESSUP, MICHAEL J. MARTIN, and
GEORGE L. JEMMOTT
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to a magnetic manual user interface device, such
as a joystick (Spec. 1:12—13). In one embodiment, a ball and socket joystick
is comprised of a manual actuator connected to a spherical magnet that is
suspended within a cylindrical bore of an annular magnet (Spec. 12:8—17).
The spherical magnet and the annular magnet have oppositely oriented
north-south magnetic axes, which causes the spherical magnet to return to a
vertical position after the actuator is deflected, or to a neutral position within
the annular magnet after the actuator is pulled upwards away from the
printed circuit board of the joystick (Spec. 13:7—24; Fig. 2B). A sensor
below the spherical magnet detects its movement (Spec. 13:1—6). Claims 1
and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A manual user interface device, comprising:
a manual actuator having an axis;
an annular magnet having a central bore;
a substantially spherical magnet that can be operatively
coupled to the manual actuator, the spherical magnet being
positioned in the bore of the annular magnet, the magnetic axes
of the magnets being substantially co-axial, and the polarity of
the magnets being oppositely oriented such that the interaction
of their magnetic fields provides restoring forces that urge the
spherical magnet so that its axis is aligned with a neutral axis;
and
2
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
a three-axis magnetic sensor positioned to detect changes
in a magnetic field due to movement of the spherical magnet and
generate signals representative of the direction and amount of
movement of the spherical magnet relative to the neutral axis.
10. A manual user interface device, comprising:
a manual actuator having an axis;
a plurality of magnets arranged in a concentric relationship
with at least one of the magnets being operatively coupled to the
manual actuator and the polarity of the magnets being oriented
such that the interaction of their magnetic fields provides
restoring forces that urge the coupled magnet so that its magnetic
axis is aligned with a neutral axis; and
a three-axis magnetic sensing element for sensing
magnetic fields in three-axes at a point in space and positioned
to detect changes in a magnetic field due to movement of the
operatively coupled magnet and generate signals representative
of the movement of the operatively coupled magnet relative to
the neutral axis.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Takatsuka
Lewis
Ameson
Phan Le
Hoyt
Arita
Chen
US 5,959,863 Sept. 28, 1999
US 6,515,650 Feb. 4,2003
US 7,081,883 July 25, 2006
US 8,054,291 Nov. 8,2011
US 2001/0024192 A1 Sept. 27, 2001
US 2006/0146018 A1 July 6, 2006
US 2008/0184799 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
3
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 10—13, 15—18, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, and Hoyt.
Claims 2, 3, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, Hoyt, and Lewis.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, Hoyt, and Arita.
Claims 6—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, Hoyt, and Ameson.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, Hoyt, and Chen.
Claims 20 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Phan Le, Takatsuka, Hoyt, Ameson, and Lewis.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—9 and 20—23
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds the combination
of Phan Le, Takatsuka, and Hoyt discloses all the recited limitations,
including that Phan Le teaches “a substantially spherical magnet that can be
operatively coupled to the manual actuator,” that Takatsuka teaches “an
annular magnet having a central bore,” and that Phan Le and Takatsuka
collectively teach “the spherical magnet being positioned in the bore of the
annular magnet” (Final Act. 5—6). Appellants contend Phan Le does not
disclose a spherical magnet, but rather a sphere of magnetic material (see
App. Br. 4—7). Appellants also contend Takatsuka teaches the opposite of
4
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
the claimed actuator-coupled magnet located within the bore of an annular
magnet, because the magnet attached to an actuator in Takatsuka’s device is
located outside of, not within the bore of, another magnet (see App. Br. 9—
10). We are persuaded the Examiner erred.
Phan Le discloses an embodiment of a device with a sensor
arrangement, shown in Figure 10, that includes a sphere 44 “made of
magnetic material” coupled to a joystick 49 where “[i]n the rest position, the
joystick stands upright, the magnetic force produced by the permanent
magnet [46] is responsible for this” (Phan Le 1 61; Fig. 10). Appellants
argue Phan Le’s sphere is not a magnet, but merely magnetic material that is
affected by the magnetic field of the permanent magnet located beneath the
sphere (see App. Br. 4—7). However, the Examiner responds by asserting
the rejection is based on the combination of Phan Le’s Figure 10 and Figure
13 embodiments, where Figure 13 shows a spherical magnet (Ans. 23).
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s combination of Phan Le’s Figure
10 and Figure 13 embodiments to meet the claim 1 limitation of “a
substantially spherical magnet that can be operatively coupled to the manual
actuator.” Rather, Appellants’ arguments focus solely on Phan Le’s Figure
10 embodiment (see App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 1—2). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Phan Le teaches a spherical magnet
coupled to an actuator.
We are, however, persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the
combination of Phan Le with Takatsuka discloses the claim 1 limitation “the
spherical magnet being positioned in the bore of the annular magnet.”
Takatsuka teaches a pointing device that has a ring-like magnet 12 that is
moved via a switch cover 15, where the magnet’s movement is detected by
magnetic sensors 11 (Takatsuka, col. 5,1. 43—col. 6,1. 4; Fig. 2B). In the
5
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
base embodiment, a silicon resin 13 helps return the magnet 12 to its original
position after an external force is removed (Takatsuka, col. 5,1. 64—col. 6,1.
4; Fig. 2B); but in another embodiment, an additional ring-like magnet is
positioned inside the movable ring-like magnet to aid in returning the
movable ring-like magnet to its original position and reduce wear of the
silicon resin (see Takatsuka, col. 7,11. 30-44; Fig. 5). Takatsuka’s Figure 5
shows this other embodiment with the inner ring-like magnet 49 and the
outer ring-like magnet 42 being oppositely polarized such that the outer
portion of magnet 49 repels the inner portion of magnet 42, thus forcing
magnet 42 into a position centered around magnet 49.
However, contrary to the claimed invention, in which the spherical
magnet coupled to the actuator is located inside the annular magnet that
provides restoring forces, Takatsuka’s movable ring-like magnet 42 is
located outside the ring-like magnet 49 that provides restoring forces.
Accordingly, Takatsuka does not suggest placing Phan Le’s spherical
magnet coupled to an actuator inside an annular magnet. Moreover,
Takatsuka’s concentric ring-like magnets are each polarized from inside to
outside (see Takatsuka, Fig. 5), whereas Phan Le’s spherical magnet is
polarized from top to bottom (see Phan Le, Fig. 13). Thus, even if a
spherical magnet polarized from top to bottom and coupled to an actuator—
as taught by Phan Le (see Phan Le, Figs. 10, 13)—were situated inside one
of Takatsuka’s ring-like magnets, the inside to outside polarization of the
ring-like magnet would not urge the actuator into a proper vertical position
to function as a joystick. Accordingly, we find Phan Le in view of
Takatsuka does not disclose “the spherical magnet being positioned in the
bore of the annular magnet, the magnetic axes of the magnets being
substantially co-axial, and the polarity of the magnets being oppositely
6
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
oriented such that the interaction of their magnetic fields provides restoring
forces that urge the spherical magnet so that its axis is aligned with a neutral
axis,” as recited in claim 1.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claim 20 which recites
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2—9 and 21—23 for similar
reasons.
Claims 10—19
Although Appellants argue independent claim 10 based on the same
arguments presented for independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 13), we note the
claim 1 features discussed above—“a substantially spherical magnet that can
be operatively coupled to the manual actuator, the spherical magnet being
positioned in the bore of the annular magnet”—are not recited in claim 10.
Rather, claim 10 recites the broader limitations “a plurality of magnets
arranged in a concentric relationship with at least one of the magnets being
operatively coupled to the manual actuator.” Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments discussed above are not persuasive with respect to claim 10,
because they are not commensurate in scope with claim 10.
Appellants also contend Hoyt fails to teach “a three-axis magnetic
sensor” (App. Br. 10-11), which is recited in claim 10, but we are not
persuaded by this argument. Specifically, Appellants argue “the purported
sensor in Hoyt is ... at most, a grouping of several separate and distinct
discrete sensors. . . . Hoyt makes it clear that these are multiple separate
sensing devices, not a ‘sensor’ as claimed” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br.
3). However, the Specification provides that the sensor may include
multiple “magnetic field sensing elements in the form of Hall effect devices
7
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
and circuitry configured to select and/or interpolate between the outputs of
the Hall effect devices.” Accordingly, we find the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “magnetic sensor” encompasses several Hall effect
elements acting collectively to sense the position of an actuator. Hoyt
discloses a “six axis joystick 110” that uses “Hall-effect sensor arrays 170,
172, 174, and 176 that are mounted to a circuit board 178” where “[e]ach
Hall-effect sensor array includes individual Hall-effect sensors A, B, and C”
(Hoyt, col. 7,11. 53—57 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants have not shown
Hoyt’s sensor array fails to teach “a three-axis magnetic sensor” as recited in
claim 10 and construed according to the broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification.
Additionally, Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of
references is improper (App. Br. 11—13). Specifically, Appellants argue
[cjombining Phan Le with Takatsuka makes no sense as
Takatsuka describes an inner fixed magnet to purportedly
provide restorative force, while Phan Le, as well as the presently
claimed invention, rely on the inner magnet to be moveable with
an attached actuator. . . . Accordingly, combining them as the
Examiner has done merely reflects hindsight bias ....
(App. Br. 12). This argument, however, is not persuasive because claim 10
does not specify whether an inner or outer magnet is coupled to the actuator.
The Examiner’s reliance on Phan Le for claim 10 is superfluous because the
Examiner’s citations to Takatsuka and Hoyt provide a prima facie case of
obviousness that addresses all the limitations actually recited in claim 10
(see Final Act. 8—9).
Appellants also argue “the Examiner claims that one [sic] it would be
obvious to combine the references to ‘provide a less sensitive sensor array
compared to inductive sensing’—this assertion by the Examiner has nothing
8
Appeal 2017-000604
Application 12/756,068
to do with Appellant’s invention, and in fact a more sensitive sensor would
likely work better” (App. Br. 13). However, “any need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
[application] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Further,
the Examiner’s combination is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recognition
in KSR that “when a[n] [application] claims a structure already known in the
prior art this is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another
known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
result.” 550 U.S. at 416. Here, the Examiner has proposed substituting one
magnetic field sensor for another magnetic field sensor, i.e., Hoyt’s Hall-
effect sensor array (see Final Act. 9). Appellants have not shown this
substitution would yield unpredictable results, or would render the
combination inoperable.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 10, and claims 11—19 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—9 and 20—23, but did not err
in rejecting claims 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 20—
23 is reversed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9