Immersion Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

14198884 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
14/198,884 03/06/2014 David M. Birnbaum IMM341.C1
(51851-0900575)
3178
34300 7590 03/27/2020
Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton/Immersion
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
VU, THANH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
kts_imm_docketing@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID M. BIRNBAUM, CHRISTOPHER J. ULLRICH,
PETER RUBIN, PHONG DAVID NGO, and LEO KOPELOW
____________

Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL M. BARRY,
and IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 16, 17, and 20–29,
which are all the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 13–38; Final Act 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Immersion Corporation.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

2
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as “relat[ing] to graphical user
interfaces and, more particularly, to systems and methods for interpreting
physical interactions with a graphical user interface.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, shown here with a disputed limitation in italics, is
representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A device comprising:
a display configured to display a graphical user
interface comprising a shared virtual physical space;
a sensor configured to detect user interaction with the
shared virtual physical space;
a processor in communication with the display and the
sensor, the processor configured to:
receive a sensor signal from the sensor, the sensor
signal comprising data associated with the user
interaction;
receive a remote signal from a remote device, the
remote signal associated with the shared virtual physical
space, wherein the shared virtual physical space
comprises a three-dimensional virtual space;
select a file to transfer to the remote device based,
at least in part, on the user interaction, wherein the user
interaction comprises a movement in a Z-axis in the
shared virtual physical space;
determine a haptic effect based in part on the file
to transfer;
output a haptic signal to an actuator configured to
output the haptic effect; and
transfer the file to the remote device.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App’x).
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

3
Rejections & References
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 16, 17, and 20–29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Marvit (US 7,176,886 B2;
issued Feb. 13, 2007), Wolinsky (US 2008/0020843 A1; published Jan. 24,
2008), Shahoian (US 2005/0052430 A1; published Mar. 10, 2005), and Lee
(US 2008/0143685 A1; published June 19, 2008). Final Act. 4–8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues all claims together as a group based on claim 1,
which therefore is representative. See Appeal Br. 19–22; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of
Appellant’s contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. Instead, as consistent with our discussion below, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Office Action from
which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because the
rejection does “not even attempt to cite to a prior art reference as disclosing
‘determine a haptic effect based in part on the file to transfer,’ as is required
by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 19; see also id. at 20–22. In particular, Appellant
contends “Marvit is in no way related to transferring a file,” and “[t]hus, it
certainly cannot disclose determining a haptic effect ‘based in part on the
file to transfer,’ as is required.” Id. at 20. Appellant further contends “Lee
is in no way related to haptic effects” and “[t]he sections of Lee cited by the
Examiner are simply related to file transfer.” Id. at 21.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner errs because “Marvit is in no
way related to transferring a file” (Appeal Br. 20) is unpersuasive because
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

4
the rejection does not rely on Marvit for “file transfer” limitations, and the
argument with respect to “Lee [being] in no way related to haptic effects”
(id. at 21) is similarly unpersuasive because the rejection does not rely on
Lee for “haptic effect” limitations. See Final Act. 4–6. One cannot
demonstrate nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. Keller, 642 at 425; Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097.
As the Examiner responds, and we agree:
Marvit teaches that determining a haptic effect based in part on
the user interaction for selecting an item such as providing
haptic feedback to notify the user of command or interaction
input that was recognized as a gesture. In addition, Marvit
teaches that one or more recognized gestures have their own
respective feedbacks. Furthermore, Lee teaches gesturing
command or interaction input for selecting a file to transfer to a
remote device and providing feedback based in part on the
selection of the file to transfer.
Thus, the combination of Marvit and Lee teaches a haptic
feedback or effect is determined to be output based on the
recognized gesture. In this case, the recognized gesture would
be a gesture to select a file to transfer.
Ans. 8 (citing Marvit 13:25–67, 18:55–19:31, 20:39–57).
Ordinarily skilled artisans would have understood Marvit broadly
teaches of the use of gesture inputs for which there is vibratory feedback (a
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

5
“haptic effect”) for functions on handheld devices. In particular, Marvit
discloses using gesture input with a handheld device for purposes such as
performing commands that change displayed information (12:26–30),
desktop navigation and menu selections (13:50–53, 14:9–34), and “to select
or otherwise perform a function according to the information currently
indicated at the cursor” (17:24–27; see also 18:45–55). Marvit also broadly
teaches providing vibratory (haptic) feedback for gesture inputs, explaining
it “may be varied in duration, frequency and amplitude, singly or in different
combinations over time” to allow for individualized vibratory feedback for
particular gestures. Marvit 18:61–19:31. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Marvit teaches “determin[ing] a haptic effect based in part on” user
interaction. Final Act. 4–5.
Marvit does not disclose a user interaction being a file transfer. Thus,
vis-à-vis the disputed limitation, Marvit’s only deficiency is that it does not
teach determining a haptic effect based on “[a selected] file to transfer”
(quoting claim 1). The Examiner finds that Lee (which discloses “providing
a user interface for file transmission” (Lee Abstract)) fills this gap in
Marvit’s teaching. See Final Act. 6. Appellant does not contest the finding
that Lee teaches file transfer, but argues in reply that the combination of
Marvit and Lee is deficient because “determining a haptic effect based on a
gesture, even if that gesture also selects a file to transfer” does not teach or
suggest “determin[ing] a haptic effect based in part on the file to transfer.”
Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s argument in reply is unpersuasive because the disputed
limitation encompasses (reads on) a device that provides vibratory feedback
in response to a user interaction, as taught by Marvit, when the user
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

6
interaction is a transfer of a selected file, as taught by Lee. Artisans of
ordinary skill would have understood Marvit teaches a method that
determines a particular vibratory feedback (haptic effect) to provide based
on recognizing a particular gesture input (user interaction). Marvit 18:55–
19:60. Lee teaches user interaction to select a file to transfer. E.g., Lee
¶¶ 60–62. Using Lee’s selection of a file to transfer as the user interaction
with Marvit’s “gesture input / vibratory feedback” method results in
providing (which includes “determining” what to provide, as recited) a
vibratory feedback (“a haptic effect”) based on the user interaction of
selecting a file to transfer (“based in part on the [selected] file to transfer”).
Thus, “determin[ing] a haptic effect based in part on the file to transfer,” as
recited, reads on the combined teachings of Marvit and Lee.
Appellant also contends Marvit is deficient because it “does not
disclose anything about determining a haptic effect. Rather, it simply states
that an effect is output ‘to notify the user that the movement was in fact
recognized as a gesture.” Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis added). This argument
is unpersuasive. Marvit teaches providing particular vibratory feedback
(“haptic effects”) for particular user interactions (gesture inputs). Marvit
18:61–19:32. Ordinarily skilled artisans understand that providing a
particular vibratory (haptic) feedback includes determining the particular
vibratory (haptic) effect to provide, and that when such feedback is provided
in response to an input to cause a particular file transfer (as taught by Lee),
the determination is “based in part on the file to transfer.”
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1 and, along with
it, the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 16, 17, and 20–29, which
Appellant argues together therewith.
Appeal 2019-001702
Application 14/198,884

7
CONCLUSION
We affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14,
16, 17, and 20–29.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 14, 16,
17, 20–29
103 Marvit, Wolinsky, Shahoian, Lee
1, 2, 6, 8–
10, 14,
16, 17,
20–29

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)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED