Appeal 2007-0802
Application 10/317,930
claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. See id.;
Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9
USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines
a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble
only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not
a claim limitation. See Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v.
Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Here, claims 1
and 8 define structurally complete inventions that require no “scanning” or
movement of the displayed pattern for creating the sensory perception of
passage of a user’s body part over a tactile display.
Additionally, we find the Examiner’s position with respect to reading
the recited microvalves on the matrix elements of Lake to be reasonable
since each element is actuated by the flow of a fluid in response to pressure,
temperature or electric field through an opening or valve. In particular, the
touchpad that is sensitive to pressure directs the pressure to the pad through
an opening for each matrix element.
We further agree with the Examiner’s rationale for combining Sharder
with Lake to apply the fluid activated stimulus of Lake to the haptic sensory-
motor effect display of Sharder. As such, any of the actuation methods of
Lake may be used for converting the received haptic data and creating a
sensory effect display, as taught by Sharder.
Therefore, to the extent claimed, the combination of Sharder and Lake
suggests the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 8. Claim 14, on the other
hand, recites controlling the activation of the stimulus points to simulate
sensation of lateral motion across the user’s body without the actual
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013