Xin Feng et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2020

14819825 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
14/819,825 08/06/2015 Xin Feng RPS920130208-US-CNT 5689
63203 7590 01/24/2020
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
EXAMINER
MERKOULOVA, OLGA VLADIMIROVNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2020 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):
John@rogitz.com
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte XIN FENG and PETER CARLSON RANE1
____________________

Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JON M. JURGOVAN, AMBER L. HAGY, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Lenovo
Singapore PTE. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 6, 2015, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 24, 2017, the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed June 24, 2017, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
March 27, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 29, 2018.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a device that includes a haptic element that
can assume different configurations to assist visually-impaired users, or
those who wish to manipulate the device without providing their full
attention. Spec. Abstract, 1. An example of the device is provided in Figure
3 of the Specification, shown below.

In Figure 3 above, device 300 includes touch-enabled display area 310 and
haptic layer 303. Spec. 10–11. Touch-enabled display area 310 includes
selectable input elements A and B, and haptic layer 303 forms corresponding
input elements A’ and B’, which can be manipulated to input the same
commands. Id. at 12. Haptic layer 303 is actuatable to form flat areas (the
claimed “non-discrete configuration”) or three-dimensional areas such as
buttons A’ and B’ (the claimed “first discrete configuration”). Id. The
device forms the three-dimensional buttons in response to determining the
function that the device is to perform. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

3

A more specific example of the device is provided in Figure 7 of the
Specification, shown below.

In Figure 7 above, the device’s front 704 presents an alarm 708 and a snooze
selector element 710. Spec. 17. The device’s back 706 includes a three-
dimensional button 712, formed by actuation of a haptic layer, which can be
depressed to select the snooze function. Id. The button configuration on the
back 706 may be changed by appropriate actuation based on the function the
device is to perform. For example, Figure 8 shows the haptic layer on the
device back forming two buttons for a telephone function displayed on the
device front, and Figure 9 shows the haptic layer forming three buttons for a
media player function.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the claimed invention, and incorporates the mentioned
features:

Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

4

1. A device, comprising:
a processor;
a haptic component which changes between a non-discrete
configuration and at least a first discrete configuration, the haptic
component being accessible to the processor; and
storage accessible to the processor and bearing
instructions executable by the processor to:
execute a function at the device;
in response to execution of the function, determine that the
function is a function for which the haptic component is
manipulable to provide input associated with the function; and
in response to the determination that the function is a
function for which the haptic component is manipulable to
provide input associated with the function, command the haptic
component to assume the first discrete configuration.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims Appendix). Independent claim 10 recites a computer
readable storage media similar to claim 1. Claim 12 is directed to a
computer readable storage medium for presenting a selector on a display,
and actuating a haptic structure which can be depressed to perform the same
command as the selector. Claim 18 is a method similar to claim 12.

REJECTIONS3
I. Claims 1–5, 10–14, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Panotopoulos (US 2006/0238510 A1, published
October 26, 2006) and Pratt (US 2012/0249474 A1, published October 4,
2012). Final Act. 9–12.

3 The rejections for non-statutory double patenting and for indefiniteness
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) were withdrawn by the Examiner. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

5

II. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Panotopoulos, Pratt, and Pala (US 2009/0244017 A1, published October 1,
2009). Final Act. 12–13.
III. Claims 7–9, 11, 12, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Panotopoulos, Pratt, and Colley (US 2013/0082824 A1,
published April 4, 2013). Final Act. 14–15.

OPINION
Obviousness
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
At the outset, we note that merely quoting or underlining claim
language and asserting it is different from prior art references is insufficient
to constitute an argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“The
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.” (Emphasis added)). Furthermore, “[i]t is
not the function of [the Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

6

argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior
art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, in the following analysis, we only address Appellant’s
contentions that are articulated with sufficient particularity and supported by
sufficient explanation as to constitute cognizable allegations of specific
reversible Examiner error and thereby amount to actual arguments.
Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
I. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 1–5, 10–14, 16, 18, and 20
Claims 1 and 10
Appellant argues for patentability of independent claims 1 and 10
together as one group. Appeal Br. 6–8. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group and specifically address only this claim in our
analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Panotopoulos (which Appellant refers to as
“Pano”) discloses a haptic component assuming a discrete configuration in
response to a determination that a function executed by a device is a function
for which the haptic component is manipulable to provide input associated
with the function, as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 9–10 (citing
Panotopoulos ¶¶ 66–82, Figs. 2A–3C [200], 7 [710], 8B, 8C, 9 [905], [925].
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner, arguing that Panotopoulos does not
disclose a determination that that function is one that receives manipulable
input in response to execution of a function, or that its microchambers,
which emulate hard keys of a keyboard, assume certain shapes in response
this determination. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2–3.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

7

Some discussion of Panotopoulos’s disclosure will be helpful in
understanding the issues presented. As the Examiner explains, function 905
in Panotopoulos’s Figure 9 selects either a first emulated keypad (e.g. a
telephone keypad) or a second emulated keyboard (e.g., a PDA). Final Act.
10; Panotopoulos ¶¶ 78–81. Panotopoulos explicitly mentions the second
emulated keyboard (of a PDA) may have raised areas (i.e., discrete
configurations) formed by actuation of microchambers, as shown below in
Panotopoulos’s Figures 2C and 2D. See Panotopoulos ¶ 81.

As shown in Figure 2C, valve 242 allows airflow into microchamber 210
from manifold 222, whereas valves 241, 243 prevent air flow into
microchambers 205, 215. In Figure 2D, valve 242 allows air to escape from
microchamber 210 into manifold 222. Depending on whether they are
inflated or deflated, one or more microchambers may be used to constitute a
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

8

raised or recessed emulated hard key. Panotopoulos ¶ 40. An example of a
keyboard emulated with Panotopoulos’s microchambers is shown below in
Figures 3A and 3B.

In Figures 3A and 3B, each of the 12 keys of a conventional telephone
keypad is emulated by raising the top surfaces of each of 16 adjacent
microchambers to form a raised, square keypad corresponding to each of the
telephone keys. Panotopoulos ¶ 50. Similarly, in Figures 4A and 4B,
Panotopoulos shows that its keyboard can be reconfigured with controls to
emulate an MP3 player. The keyboard can thus be reconfigured according
to device function.
With this background on Panotopoulos, we return to Appellant’s
argument. Specifically, Appellant argues that Panotopoulos’s Figure 9 does
not disclose any determination that a function requires key manipulation in
response to execution of the function, or commanding a haptic component to
assume a discrete configuration in response to the determination, as claimed.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

9

Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–3. Selection of a particular keyboard in
Panotopoulos, however, is inseparable from executing the function
associated with the selected keyboard and determining that the selected
function requires manipulable input. In other words, when a user selects
either a telephone keyboard or a PDA keyboard in Pantopolous’s Figure 9,
step 905, the processor executes the corresponding telephone or PDA
function, determines that the telephone or PDA function requires a particular
emulated keyboard configuration to receive manipulable input, and
commands the valves of the microchamber array to form emulated keys for
the selected keyboard layout. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from Panotopoulos that these functions could be performed
sequentially so that the execution of the telephone or PDA function occurs
first, in response to which the determination that the function requires
manipulable emulated keys occurs second, in response to which the
command controls the microchamber array to form the manipulable keys.
This would have been the logical way for one of ordinary skill in the art to
program Panotopoulos’s device.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the
Examiner errs in finding that Panotopoulus teaches or suggests the argued
features of these claims.
Claims 12 and 18
As claims 12 and 18 recite similar limitations, we group them together
in our analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Panotopoulos discloses a selector selectable
to provide a command to a device and, contemporaneously with presenting
the selector on the display, actuating a portion of the haptic structure by
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

10

changing height of the appropriate buttons that are selectable to provide the
same command to the device. Final Act. 3 (citing Panotopoulos ¶¶ 79–80,
Fig. 9). Appellant argues that the portions of Panotopoulos that are relied
upon by the Examiner fail to disclose a selector on a display and a haptic
structure in the shape of a button, where both the selector and button are
presented contemporaneously and are selectable to provide the same
command to a device, as claimed. Appeal Br. 9–12, 19–20; Reply Br. 4–8.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that Panotopoulos discloses
the argued claim features. Final Act. 9–11; Ans. 4–6. Panotopoulos
discloses that an emulated keyboard has raised numerical keys with
displayed numerals. Panotopoulos Figs. 3A, 3B, ¶ 80. Depressing the
emulated key is indistinguishable from pressing the displayed numeral on
numeric display 316, and results in a command to input that numeral into a
computer. See Panotopolous Figs. 3A, 3B, ¶¶ 1, 51. Although Appellant’s
argument seems to assume that the claimed selector and button are separate
from one another and are each independently operable to generate the same
command, the claims recite no such language, and the Examiner is obligated
to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, under broadest reasonable interpretation, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs for the reasons Appellant argues.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites instructions executable by the processor to
“execute a second command different from the first command in response to
the first discrete button being touched but not depressed for a threshold
time.” Appeal Br. 25–28 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds this
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

11

feature disclosed by the combination of Panotopoulos and Pratt. Final Act.
11 (citing Pratt Fig. 4 and Panotopoulos ¶¶ 43, 54, 56). Appellant argues the
claimed feature is not disclosed by the combination of Panotopoulos and
Pratt. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 8–11.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Pratt’s threshold’s P and T pertain
to distance, not time, and that, while Pratt discloses its device may detect the
finger making contact with a touch surface at threshold T, no threshold time
appears to be disclosed. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further argues that the
cited paragraphs of Panatopoulos likewise fail to disclose anything that can
be perceived as a threshold time of finger application. Appeal Br. 12–13.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that the combination of Pratt and
Panotopoulos do not disclose a button, which generates a first command
when depressed, and a second command different from the first command
when touched, but not depressed, for a threshold time, as claimed. Pratt’s
threshold T pertains to the instant in time at which a finger touches a surface
to trigger generation of a haptic effect. Pratt ¶ 44. The cited paragraphs of
Panotopoulos disclose that manipulation of an emulated key generates two
commands, one triggering the input represented by the key and the other for
triggering a haptic effect, but both appear to be caused by depressing the key
and not by touching it for a threshold time. Panotopoulos ¶¶ 43, 54, 56. The
recitation of “the first discrete button being touched but not depressed for a
threshold time” requires that the button is touched with less pressure than
would be required to depress it, and that it be touched for a threshold time
duration. See Spec. 15. The cited parts of the references do not mention
touching a key for a duration of time generates a different command than
depressing the key. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

12

Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “wherein the second command is to provide audible
output at the device, the audible output pertaining [to] the first command.”
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds this feature
disclosed by Pratt. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Pratt ¶ 18); Ans. 6 (citing
Panotopoulos ¶ 57 and Pratt ¶ 18). Appellant contends that the cited
paragraph of Pratt merely discloses audio drivers, and that the cited
paragraph of Panotopoulos discloses audio feedback to confirm key
depression, and does not mention audio feedback being provided if
Panotopoulos’s key were touched but not depressed. Appeal Br. 13–14,
Reply Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that Pratt and Panotopoulos do
not mention touching a button provides audio output pertaining to the
command that would be generated by depressing the button. Pratt’s
paragraph 18 merely mentions audio drivers, and Panotopoulos’s paragraph
57 discusses audio feedback when finger pressure is detected. This is not
sufficient, however, to disclose that touching a button provides audio output
pertaining to the command generated by depressing the button, as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 5.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites “wherein the haptic structure is disposed on a first
side of a device, wherein the display is disposed on a second side of the
device opposite the first side of the device, and wherein the at least portion
of the haptic structure is actuated to assume the shape of the button at least
partially at a location on the haptic structure that corresponds transversely to
a location on the display that presents the selector.” Appeal Br. 28–29
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

13

(Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Panotopoulos shows display
and haptic structure disposed on different sides, and the shape of buttons.
Final Act. 4 (citing Panotopoulos Fig. 1, ¶ 49); Ans. 6–7 (citing
Panotopoulos Fig. 3B, ¶¶ 53–54 and Pratt Figs. 3(a)–3(b), ¶¶ 36–37).
Appellant argues that Pratt merely discloses a display that presents content,
icons, and softkeys, and that Panotopoulos’s Figure 1 does not show the
display 105 and reconfigurable keyboard 110 touching each other, let alone
on opposite sides of a device. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 12–13. Appellant
further argues that Panotopoulos fails to disclose a haptic structure actuated
to assume the shape of a button at least partially at a location of the haptic
structure that corresponds transversely to a location on a display on an
opposite side of the device at which a selector is presented, as claimed. Id.
As shown in Panotopoulos’s Figure 3B, the flexible display screen 320
is disposed on one side of the device, and the microchamber array 200
actuating the microchambers to form the raised surface 317 (the “haptic
structure”) is disposed on the opposite side of keypad 300. Panotopoulos ¶ 51.
The raised surface 317 (corresponding to the claimed “button”) is at a location
on the keypad that corresponds transversely to the numeric display 316
(corresponding to the claimed “selector” which, for example, displays the
numeral “7”). See Panotopoulos Fig. 3B, ¶ 51. Although Appellant argues
Panotopoulos’s flexible display screen 320 and microchamber array 200 are
on the same side of a device, the claims recite no language that precludes the
Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of the two components as
being on opposite sides of keypad 300. See Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
supra. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Panotopoulos discloses the
argued features of claim 14.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

14

Claim 11
Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 4, previously discussed, and
Appellant presents the same arguments for patentability. For the reasons
explained with respect to claim 4, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 16 and 20
No separate arguments are presented for claims 2, 3, 13, 16 and 20,
which fall for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
II. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 6 and 15
Claim 6 recites “wherein the second command is to provide audible
output at the device, and wherein the audible output comprises a description
of the first command.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner
finds this limitation is disclosed by Pala. Final Act. 13 (citing Pala ¶ 56).
Specifically, Pala discloses “[t]he feedback module 126 may include an
audio module (not shown) that provides audio feedback, such as audio of the
command of the control icon, to the driver when the feedback module 126
receives the processed feedback signal.” Pala ¶ 56. Appellant argues the
meaning of this phrase is not clear, and the word “description” (or a
synonym thereof) does not appear in the cited paragraph of Pala, and the
rejection has not explained how this disclosure might be construed as a
“description.” Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 13–14.
We find that Pala’s phrase “audio of the command of the control icon”
is sufficient to suggest that the audio indicates the title or underlying
function of the command that is associated with the control icon. Pala ¶ 56.
The Specification explains that “the audible output may describe the touched
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

15

button itself (e.g. its appearance and/or shape), indicate a title for the
touched button, describe the underlying function to be executed should the
touched button be depressed, etc.” Spec. 15. Pala’s “audio feedback, such
as audio of the command of the control icon” is enough to suggest to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the audio is
the title of the command or description of the underlying function.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.4
Claim 15 is similar to claim 14, discussed previously. For the same
reasons provided for claim 14, we agree with the Examiner that
Panotopoulos discloses the features recited in claim 15.
III. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 7–9, 11, 12, 17, and 19
Appellant argues Colley fails to disclose the features recited in
claim 12. App. Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 16. We addressed claim 12 in the first
rejection discussed, and concluded that the combination of Panotopoulos and
Pratt were sufficient to disclose all limitations of claim 12. The addition of
Colley to the combination cited in this rejection does not change our
previous analysis concerning claim 12. Accordingly, we do not reach
Appellant’s argument concerning Colley.
No separate arguments are presented for claims 7–9, 11, 17, and 19,
which fall for the reasons stated with respect to the claims from which they
depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
IV. Motivation to Combine
The Examiner relies on Panotopoulos to disclose most of the features
of the claims, but relies on Pratt to disclose a storage bearing instructions

4 The Examiner is advised to consider whether Colley also discloses the
argued claim feature. See Colley ¶¶ 19, 119.
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

16

executable by the processor. Final Act. 10. As a reason to combine the
references, the Examiner states “it would be obvious to the person of
ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to use the
storage shown by Pratt et al. with the apparatus shown by Panotopoulos in
order to improve efficiency of haptic effect generation with reduced latency
for different types of user interaction events.” Id. The Examiner further
finds that “use of a storage/memory accessible for a processor of Pratt et al.
with device of Panotopoulos et al. is quite obvious since all elements are
well known in the art and would not change in their respective functions and
the proposed combination would have yield nothing more than predictable
results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 9. The Examiner’s reasons
for adding Pala’s and Colley’s audio commands to the combination is “in
order to enhance quality of a touch detection for a user in driving
conditions.” Final Act. 13–14. The Examiner further finds that “all
references show the analogous devices with similar functions which can be
combined.” Id. at 4.
Appellant contends “the rejections do not demonstrate that their
reasons for the alleged motivations to combine the references were evident
in Appellant’s field of endeavor at the time of Appellant’s filing date rather
than when the rejections themselves was made.” Appeal Br. 21–22. Pratt,
however, states “the inventors recognized a need in the art for efficient
haptic effect generation with reduced latency that compliment different types
of user interaction events,” which is precisely one of the reasons the
Examiner gives to combine Panotopoulos and Pratt. Final Act. 10; Pratt ¶ 6.
In the context of driving, Pala describes a need for an “LCD device that
should lead to accurate use even without having to see the LCD device,”
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

17

which is similar to the problem described in Appellant’s Specification. Pala
¶ 5, Spec. 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that audio feedback assists a user in not having to look when manipulating a
control icon on a touch-sensitive display. Pala ¶¶ 56, 127, 133. Likewise,
Colley discloses “announcement of a feature related to the user interface
element selected (such as reciting the letter “G” if the “G” key is pressed).”
Colley ¶ 19. As the Examiner notes, all of the references show analogous
devices with similar functions such as keys and other control elements that
provide tactile or haptic feedback. Final Act. 4. The similarity of the
references would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to consider
them in combination. Id. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have
understood that Pratt’s storage memory and Pala’s and Colley’s audio
feedback as options that could be added to Panotopoulos. In other words,
the cited combinations of references are merely the combination of known
elements, with no change in their respective functions, according to known
methods, yielding predictable results. Ans. 9; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus,
contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s stated reasons to combine
are evident in the field of endeavor.
Appellant next relies on the Nuvasive case for the proposition that
“the PTO must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and
the holding it makes, which is not satisfied when the PTAB never articulated
why the additional information of the secondary references would benefit a
person having ordinary skill in the art (‘PHOSITA’) when implementing the
primary reference or how the PHOSITA would use that information when
implementing the primary references.” Appeal Br. 22 (citing In re Nuvasive,
842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Panotopoulos’s keyboard with variable
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

18

configuration, however, is described as useful for a computer. Panotopoulos
¶¶ 1, 31. As the Examiner recognizes, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that in addition to Panotopoulos’s keyboard and processor
(controller), a computer requires a storage or memory for program
instructions and data. Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 9–10. Thus, the desirability of
adding Pratt’s memory (i.e., storage) to Panotopoulos’s keyboard and
controller would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the
art, who would have known how to combine together these fundamental
components to construct a computer, whose keyboard configuration could be
varied according to the selected function. Pratt recognizes the desirability of
improving efficiency of haptic effect generation with reduced latency for
different types of user interaction events. Pratt’s mention of different types
of user interaction events suggests using different functions through
Panotopoulos’s variable keyboard configuration. Pala recognizes that
operating an input/output device without having to look at it when driving is
desirable, and that audio feedback could be used for this purpose. Pala ¶ 5,
56. Colley also discloses the use of an input/output device with audio
feedback. Colley ¶ 19. Thus, the Examiner adequately explains why the
additional information of Pratt, Pala, and Colley would have benefitted a
person having ordinary skill in the art, and how that information would have
been used with Panotopoulos, consistent with Nuvasive. Final Act. 4, 9–10,
13–14; Ans. 8–10.
Appellant further argues that the capability to combine references is
not enough to establish obviousness and that the Examiner is required to
show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
desirability of making the combination. App. Br. 22–24 (citing Personal
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

19

Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tec LLC, 805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Rovalma, S.A.
v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., 856 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); Reply
Br. 16–18. For reasons already explained, we find the Examiner
demonstrates that the person of ordinary skill in the art had the capability to
combine the reference teachings, and would have recognized the desirability
of combining them. In other words, the Examiner provides “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 6–10, and 12–20
as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but reverse the rejections of claims 4, 5,
and 11.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–14,
16, 18, 20 103 Panotopoulos, Pratt
1–3, 10,
12–14,
16, 18,
20
4, 5, 11
6, 15

103

Panotopoulos, Pratt,
Pala 6, 15
Appeal 2018-006186
Application 14/819,825

20

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–9, 11, 12,
17, 19 103
Panotopoulos, Pratt,
Colley
7–9, 12,
17, 19 11
Overall
Outcome

1–3,
6–10,
12–20
4, 5, 11

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART