Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

2019005454 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
14/587,182 12/31/2014 Yoshifumi HIROSE 2014-1674A 2810
52349 7590 06/02/2020
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
CASTIAUX, BRENT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIFUMI HIROSE and SHOICHI ARAKI
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182
Technology Center 2600
Before ADAM J. PYONIN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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 Panasonic
Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “feedback devices and haptic feedback
methods for providing haptic feedback in response to an action performed on
a touch panel by a user.” Spec. 1:16–18. Claims 1 and 5–15 are pending;
claims 1 and 12 are independent. Appeal Br. 11–15. Claim 1 is reproduced
below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A haptic feedback device which provides haptic feedback
to a user by vibrating a panel, the haptic feedback device
comprising:
the panel;
a plurality of actuators placed at mutually different
positions on the panel for vibrating the panel;
a detector that detects a plurality of touches in concurrent
contact with the panel and detects a plurality of positions, on the
panel, of the plurality of touches;
a processor that derives touch information including at
least one of (i) load information indicating at least one of a
plurality of loads applied to the panel at the plurality of touch
positions, or (ii) hardness information indicating hardness of at
least one of a plurality of objects touching the panel at the
plurality of touch positions;
determines, from among the plurality of touch positions, a
first touch position at which to provide haptic feedback by
vibration according to a predetermined haptic signal;
stores, in storage, transfer functions from each of the
plurality of actuators to each of a plurality of positions on the
panel, for each of a plurality of different pieces of the touch
information, the transfer functions varying depending on the
touch information, even for identical positions;
obtains, from the storage, the transfer functions
corresponding to (i) the plurality of positions detected by the
detector and (ii) the derived touch information; and
generates driving signals for driving the plurality of
actuators to vibrate the panel according to the haptic signal at the
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

3
first touch position and vibrate the panel at a second touch
position included in the plurality of touch positions more weakly
than at the first touch position by using the obtained transfer
functions,
wherein the plurality of actuators vibrate the panel by
applying force to the panel based on the driving signals.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
East
Cooperstock
Harris167
Saynac
Harris407
Furumoto
Harris400
US 2010/0302184 A1
US 2010/0308982 A1
US 2011/0090167 A1
US 2011/0260994 A1
US 2012/0229407 A1
US 2013/0037687 A1
US 2013/0278400 A1
Dec. 2, 2010
Dec. 9, 2010
Apr. 21, 2011
Oct. 27, 2011
Sept. 13, 2012
Feb. 14, 2013
Oct. 24, 2013

Claims 1, 5, and 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harris167, Saynac, Harris407, Furumoto, and East. Final
Act. 3.
Claims 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harris167, Saynac, Harris407, Furumoto, East, and
Harris400. Final Act. 21.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Harris167, Saynac, Harris407, Furumoto, East, Harris400, and
Cooperstock. Final Act. 28.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

4
make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “one
technical feature of the present application is that, when force is applied both
by the actuators and by touch (load), the transfer function is dependent not
on the vibrating force applied by the actuators, but on the force applied by
the touch,” and “[t]his technical feature is not rendered obvious by the
combination of Harris ‘407 and Furumoto.” Appeal Br. 6. Particularly,
Appellant contends “Harris ‘407 does not disclose applying unit forces of
magnitude other than 1N, and thus does not disclose the [recited] feature of
‘stores ... transfer functions varying depending on the touch information,
even for identical positions.’” Id. at 5. Appellant further contends that “the
equation MX"+KX=F in Furumoto . . . . does not suggest that X/F (the
transfer function) is dependent on F [(force)].” Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The disputed limitation of
claim 1 is “stores, in storage, transfer functions from each of the plurality of
actuators to each of a plurality of positions on the panel, for each of a
plurality of different pieces of the touch information, the transfer functions
varying depending on the touch information, even for identical positions”
(the “storing limitation”). See Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner finds this
storing limitation is rendered obvious based on the combined teachings of
Harris167, Saynac, Harris407, and Furumoto. See Final Act. 10
(“Harris167, as modified by Saynac, Harris407, and Furumoto, teaches the
transfer functions being different based on applied force, even for identical
positions.”).
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

5
Appellant does not show the Examiner’s reliance on Harris407 and
Furumoto for particular aspects of the storing limitation is in error. See id.
Harris407 is correctly cited for teaching storing transfer functions based on
touch inputs. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 8; Harris407 ¶ 21 (“The resulting
inverse transfer functions may be stored for later use by the device.”), ¶ 93.
The Examiner cites Furumoto for teaching transfer functions varying
depending on force, finding the reference shows “a transfer function of
[displacement X/ Force F]” that varies “based on the applied force.” Final
Act. 9 (alteration in original), 10; Furumoto Fig. 3B. In response, Appellant
argues Furumoto suggests a different transfer function “expressed by
1/(Ms2+K)” (Appeal Br. 6), but Appellant does not explain how the
Examiner errs in relying on Furumoto’s disclosure of “a transfer function of
[displacement X/force F]” (Furumoto ¶ 20 (alteration in original)). See Ans.
4 (“Furumoto explicitly recites the transfer functions which include
additional force component information.”). Thus, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding the Harris407 and Furumoto combination teaches
storing a transfer function that will vary based on a force. See Final Act. 10;
Appeal Br. 4, 5.
Moreover, Appellant’s arguments attack the teachings of Harris407
and Furumoto individually, and do not show the Examiner errs in relying on
the combination of cited references. Particularly, Appellant does not
challenge the Examiner’s finding that Harris167 teaches the claimed haptic
feedback device using transfer functions for a plurality of touches, and that
“Saynac teaches a system for determining the location and pressure of a
touch load which derives touch information including at least one of (i) load
information.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 3–4;
Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

6
Harris167 ¶¶ 50, 51; Saynac ¶ 89 (“determine the actual value of the touch
load or any other value measured by the row, column and square sensors
(i.e. resistance, pressure)”). Nor does Appellant challenge the Examiner’s
reasoning for combining the various references. See Final Act. 3–11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding one of
ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of the cited references,
yielding the haptic feedback device including the storing limitation, as
claimed. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally
review . . . uncontested aspects of the rejection.”).
Further, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that “as
recognized by the Examiner . . . the force F in Furumoto is force that applies
vibration, and therefore corresponds to the force applied by the actuators,
rather than force as touch information.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
First, we note the Examiner does not recognize any such lack of teaching, as
Appellant appears to refer to the Examiner’s paraphrasing of Appellant’s
argument and not the Examiner’s own analysis. See page 1 of Applicant-
Initiated Interview Summary, mailed October 4, 2018. Second, as discussed
above, the Examiner relies on Harris407 and Saynac for touch information.
See id. (“the cited prior art teaches these limitations in combination”); Final
Act. 6. Appellant does not present argument showing the Examiner errs in
finding one of ordinary skill would combine Harris407 and Saynac’s touch
information with Furumoto’s teaching of varying transfer functions. See
Final Act. 10. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs.

Appeal 2019-005454
Application 14/587,182

7
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent claim
1 to be obvious in view of the cited references. Appellant presents similar
arguments for the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 5–15 for the
reasons discussed above.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 12–
15
103(a) Harris167, Saynac,
Harris407, Furumoto,
East
1, 5, 12–15
6–10 103(a) Harris167, Saynac,
Harris407, Furumoto,
East, Harris400
6–10
11 103(a) Harris167, Saynac,
Harris407, Furumoto,
East, Harris400,
Cooperstock
11
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–15
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