2021002490 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

KIMBERLY WHITE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2021

2021002490 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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. 15/816,415 11/17/2017 KIMBERLY WHITE KWLM0101PUS 4633 22045 7590 09/30/2021 Brooks Kushman 1000 Town Center 22nd Floor Southfield, MI 48075 EXAMINER FERNSTROM, KURT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2021 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): docketing@brookskushman.com kdilucia@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIMBERLY WHITE Appeal 2021-002490 Application 15/816,415 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MARTIN, 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 1–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 Kimberly White. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2021-002490 Application 15/816,415 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed “to audio learning or communication tools, and in particular, to tactile learning or communication tools.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An adapter set for converting a visual communication tool that presents a user with a plurality of actuatable visual cues to be actuated by the user thereby causing rendering of words and phrases, the adapter set comprising: a plurality of tactile overlays, each tactile overlay positionable over and securable to a corresponding actuatable visual cue where the tactile overlay has a tactile pattern that represents the corresponding visual cue, the tactile pattern being recognizable by touch, the plurality of overlays adapted to convert a visual communication tool to a tactile communication tool for saying words and phrases. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Severson US 6,661,407 B2 Dec. 9, 2003 Saba US 2008/0020356 A1 Jan. 24, 2008 Isaac US 2012/0328349 A1 Dec. 27, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 5–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Severson and Saba. Claims 3, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Severson, Saba, and Isaac. OPINION Appellant’s arguments essentially boil down to an assertion that “Saba only provides tactile patterns for letters or numbers and not words or phrases.” Appeal Br. 5. We agree with the Examiner, however, that “one of Appeal 2021-002490 Application 15/816,415 3 ordinary skill in the art would [have understood] that the principle of operation of the device taught by Saba could easily be applied to tactile patterns corresponding to words and phrases, which after all are combinations of letters.” Ans. 5. Appellant’s claims merely require an overlay that replaces visual representations with tactile representations. Most of Saba’s visual representations are numbers or letters and so most of Saba’s tactile representations are letters and numbers as well. Despite this, one of skill in the art would have understood that multiple letters could also be replaced by a similar tactile representation of multiple letters to form words and phrases. For example, Saba discloses a tactile version of the asterisk key that is similar to Appellant’s keys in that it is merely a tactile version of the flat image it is covering. The important teaching in Saba is simply that whatever is shown visually may be replaced with an equivalent tactile representation and one of skill in the art would have understood that this could apply equally to single characters as well as to longer words and phrases. As to Appellant’s argument regarding Severson not being a tactile tool, this argument is essentially moot. Although we agree with the Examiner that Severson could be considered tactile in the sense that a user presses buttons for the device to audibly play words related to the buttons, this is not even necessary because it is the combination that is at issue. The whole point of the combination is to take the teaching of Saba to convert a visual understanding of the buttons to a tactile one. Once so combined, the combination undoubtedly teaches the claimed tactile functionality. Furthermore, the claims do not refer to a device, but merely a tool for converting a device. In actuality, Saba teaches the claimed conversion adapter and the Examiner’s combination merely expands the use of such an Appeal 2021-002490 Application 15/816,415 4 adapter to a device such as that shown in Severson. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections and sustain all of the Examiner’s rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–7 103 Severson, Saba 1, 2, 5–7 3, 4, 8 103 Severson, Saba, Isaac 3, 4, 8 Overall Outcome 1–8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED