14643488 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2020)

Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 3, 2020

14643488 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2020)

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. 14/643,488 03/10/2015 Neil John Harris 46120-7207002 2477 151794 7590 01/03/2020 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER SUTEERAWONGSA, JARURAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2020 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NEIL JOHN HARRIS Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 Technology Center 2600 Before ADAM J. PYONIN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NVF Tech. Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a touch sensitive device. Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 25. A touch sensitive device comprising: a touch sensitive surface, one or more sensors arranged and configured to detect a user’s touch on the touch sensitive surface; a plurality of force exciters or actuators coupled to the touch sensitive surface, each force exciter or actuator being coupled to the touch sensitive surface at a corresponding location different from the other force exciters or actuators; a signal generator coupled to the plurality of exciters or actuators; and a processor in communication with the one or more sensors and the signal generator, the processor configured to drive each of the plurality of exciters or actuators so that the combined effect of the plurality of exciters or actuators on the touch sensitive surface is to provide, in response to a user touching the touch sensitive surface: a haptic sensation at a region touched by the user; and an audio signal steered to be localized to the region touched by the user and synchronous in time with the haptic sensation. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Begault Zurek US 7,346,172 B1 US 7,564,980 B2 Mar. 18, 2008 July 21, 2009 Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 3 Hill Bown Fukumoto Maruyama Takenaka US 2001/0006006 A1 US 2002/0075135 A1 US 2002/0149561 A1 US 2007/0080951 A1 US 2008/0055277 A1 July 5, 2001 June 20, 2002 Oct. 17, 2002 Apr. 12, 2007 Mar. 6, 2008 REJECTIONS Claims 25, 30, 31, 33–39, and 41 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto, Takenaka, and Hill. Final Act. 2–5. Claim 26 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, and Zurek. Final Act. 6. Claims 27–29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, and Begault. Final Act. 6–7. Claim 32 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, and Maruyama. Final Act. 7– 8. Claim 40 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, and Bown. Final Act. 8–9. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Fukumoto and Hill teach or suggest “an audio signal steered to be localized to the region touched by the user and synchronous in time with the haptic sensation,” as recited in claim 25? Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 4 ANALYSIS Appellant’s claim 25 recites a touch sensitive device, such as a touchscreen for example, in which a user’s touch results in simultaneous audio feedback and a haptic sensation being generated in response to the touch. The audio signal is “steered to be localized to the region touched by the user.” In rejecting claim 25, the Examiner finds that Fukumoto teaches delivering a haptic sensation at a region touched by the user (citing ¶¶ 365– 366) and also an audio signal to be localized to the region touched by the user and synchronous in time with the haptic sensation (citing ¶ 307). Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds Fukumoto discloses that an oscillatory actuator may be used as a speaker which generates vibration and sound simultaneously. Final Act. 4 (citing Fukumoto ¶¶ 306–308). The Examiner acknowledges that “Fukumoto does not expressly disclose the audio signal is steered.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner turns to Hill to cure this deficiency, finding that “Hill discloses an emitting transmitter may be directional, which may be advantageous in some applications since the directivity achieved is determined by their physical shape and may therefore be tuned accordingly.” Final Act. 4 (citing Hill ¶ 55). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in two respects. First, Appellant argues that Fukumoto does not teach or suggest any “localized” audio signal. Appeal Br. 4. More specifically, Appellant argues that Fukumoto merely “teaches a waveform signal for simultaneously providing an audio signal and a vibration, not an audio signal to be localized to a region touched by the user.” Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 5 Second, Appellant argues Hill does not cure the acknowledged deficiency in Fukumoto. Specifically, Appellant argues the cited portions of Hill, which describe the use of bender transducers, are not audio signals at all, and there is no description in Hill of steering any audio signal. Appeal Br. 5. We agree with Appellant. Appellant’s Specification describes an example of how an audio signal may be “steered to be localized to a region touched by the user,” indicating that “directionality or location to the sound source . . . is achieved by ensuring that the source’s radiation location is geometrically on or near the point for user tactile input of data and commands.” Spec. 18, ll. 27–29. Thus, the Specification makes clear that a “localized” audio signal is one that is purposefully directed such that its radiation location is at or close to the location of the user’s touch, rather than being simply repeatedly emitted from the same location. We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Fukumoto do not teach that the audio signal is localized to the location of the user’s touch. Rather, the cited portions of Fukumoto merely teach that an audio signal is generated and emitted at the same time as haptic feedback. We also agree with Appellant that the cited disclosure in Hill does not remedy the deficiencies in Fukumoto. The cited portion of Hill teaches that a bender transducer may be directional. However, Hill teaches “the directivity achieved is determined by [the bender transducer’s] physical shape and may therefore be tuned accordingly.” Hill ¶ 55. This description suggests that the bender transducers may direct their emission to a particular point, but the emission is not “steered,” within the meaning of the claim, as Bender’s point is fixed and not dynamically adjustable. Appellant’s claim, however, Appeal 2019-001383 Application 14/643,488 6 requires that the audio signal be directed to varying locations based on where the user touch occurs. As such, we agree with Appellant that the cited references do not teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25, nor of claims 26–41 which depend therefrom. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 25, 30, 31, 33–39, 41 103(a) Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill 25, 30, 31, 33–39, 41 26 103(a) Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, Zurek 26 27–29 103(a) Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, Begault 27–29 32 103(a) Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, Maruyama 32 40 103(a) Fukumoto, Takenaka, Hill, Bown 40 Overall Outcome 25–41 REVERSED