Ex Parte Arneson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 4, 2012

11295041 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte THEODORE R. ARNESON ____________________ Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 15 has been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention relates to a hinge mechanism for handheld electronic devices (Spec. 1, [0001]). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A handheld electronic device comprising: a first housing; a second housing; and an extendable hinge mechanism pivotally connected to the first housing along a first axis, the extendable hinge mechanism pivotally connected to the second housing along a second axis, the extendable hinge mechanism is movable between at least a first position and a second position, wherein a distance between the first axis and the second axis of the extendable hinge mechanism is different in the second position than when in the first position, wherein the first housing is non-pivotally movable relative to the second housing. Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 3 References Zou US 7,299,523 B2 Nov. 27, 2007 Qian US 7,058,351 B2 Jun. 6, 2006 Goldenberg US 5,363,089 Nov. 8, 1994 Nagai US 5,995,373 Nov. 30, 1999 Rejections (1) Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zou and Qian. (2) Claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg. (3) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zou, Qian, Goldenberg, and Nagai. ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19 Claims 1-7 and 17-19 Appellant asserts the invention as recited in claim 1 is not obvious over Zou and Qian (Br. 4-5). Specifically, Appellant contends Zou teaches a single hinge that pivotally constrains the housing and cover action about a single axis (Br. 5 and 7). Therefore, according to Appellant, Zou does not disclose “the first housing is non-pivotally movable relative to the second housing” as recited in claim 1 and “relative motion between the first housing and the second housing is independently constrained by both the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis” as recited in claim 17 (id.). Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 4 Further, Appellant argues the Examiner’s suggestion to modify the hinge of Zou to incorporate telescoping parts is misplaced as the combination would interfere with the object or intent of Zou (id.). Appellant asserts the teachings of Qian are not within the scope and content of the prior art (id.). According to Appellant, “[i]t is unreasonable to input the knowledge of the document scanning arts to the designer of handheld electronic device housings, like cell phone housings” (id.). Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or suggests “the first housing is non-pivotally movable relative to the second housing” as recited in claim 1 and “relative motion between the first housing and the second housing is independently constrained by both the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis” as recited in claim 17? Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined Zou and Qian? Analysis With respect to Appellant’s arguments that Zou does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations, we note the Examiner is relying on Qian to teach this limitation (Ans. 4). Additionally, we are not persuaded an ordinary artisan would find Qian to be non-analogous art as argued by Appellant (Br. 5). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Qian is being relied upon as teaching or suggesting hinging mechanisms of electronic devices and is therefore, analogous art, i.e. within the scope and content of the prior art (Ans. 11-12). Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 5 Further, we agree with the Examiner’s articulated reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the technique of Qian into the system of Zou (Ans. 4-5 and 12-14). We are additionally not persuaded that integrating the hinge of Qian into Zou’s design would interfere with the object or intent of Zou. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 12-14). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 17 and dependent claims 2-7, 18, and 19, not separately argued. Moreover, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by improperly combining Zou and Qian. Claim 9 Appellant argues the housing in Zou does not rotate 360 degrees and thus, only one side of each of the first and second housing portions in Zou can be adjacent (Br. 6). Issue 1c: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or suggests the additional limitation as recited in claim 9? Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt them as our own (Ans. 7 and 12). Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 6 Claim 11 Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Qian as teaching a hinge having an axis that is aligned with a mid-plane of a housing portion is erroneous as Qian does not teach this limitation (Br. 6). Further, Appellant maintains the Examiner’s “vague reference to an historical judicial ruling, without analogizing the facts of the instant application, lacks a factual basis and thus, fails to state a prima face [sic] case of obviousness” (id.). Issue 1d: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or suggests the additional limitation as recited in claim 11? Analysis Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We find the Examiner has set forth that locating the axis along a mid-plane of either housing would have been merely rearranging the already taught elements (Ans. 13). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in this reasoning, or further, that locating the axis in the recited location would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Therefore, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Issue 1 Conclusion The Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and suggestions of Zou and Qian or in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19. Therefore, Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 7 the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zou and Qian. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20 Claims 8 and 20 Claims 8 and 20 were not separately argued and thus, claims 8 and 20 fall with their respective independent claims, claims 1 and 17. Claims 12-14 and 16 Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg because the relied upon references do not suggest disposing a flexible circuit “within the extendable hinge” of Zou, the portion of the flexible circuit being looped at least partially about either the first axis or the second axis (Br. 8-9). Specifically, Appellant contends incorporating the flex assembly into the rotation assemblies would likely extend about the single hinge, since the rotation assemblies are disposed laterally of the single hinge (Br. 9). Additionally, according to Appellant, Zou’s rotation assemblies would likely be unable to accommodate a flexible circuit of Goldenberg and Qian’s hinge between the cover and the scanning body would prevent a flexible circuit from being looped partially about either axis (id.). Issue 2a: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg teaches or suggests “a flexible circuit having a Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 8 portion disposed at least partially within the extendable hinge mechanism, the portion of the flexible circuit is looped at least partially about either the first axis or the second axis” as recited in claim 12? Issue 2b: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg? Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own (see Ans. 8-9 and 14-15). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that include the argument that “it is questionable whether there is sufficient spacing to accommodate a flexible circuit of Goldberg [sic] within the rotation assemblies of Zou” (Br. 9) (emphasis ours). Indeed, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to convince us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Issue 2 Conclusion Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent claim 12 and claims 8, 13, 14, 16, and 20, not separately argued. Moreover, the Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and suggestions of Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg. Appeal 2010-006914 Application 11/295,041 9 ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 10 Appellant did not argue claim 10 separately, and thus, claim 10, which depends from claims 1 and 9, falls with these claims for the reasons set forth in Issue 1. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zou, Qian, Goldenberg, and Nagai. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED msc