Ex Parte Atkinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

13003333 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/003,333 01/10/2011
22879 7590 03/04/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lee Atkinson
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82600641 8157
EXAMINER
PASCAL, LESLIE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEE ATKINSON
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, and 16-19. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (App. Br. 1 ).
2 The Examiner indicated claims 6-8, 14, 15, and 20-22 are allowable (Final
Act. 4, Ans. 4).
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a rotatable display assembly to be
used in electronic devices (see Spec. i-fi-f l, 5).
Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
1. A rotatable display assembly comprising:
a base unit;
a display unit, wherein the display unit is rotatably
coupled to the base unit using at least one hinge; and
a wireless transmission system adapted to transmit data
wirelessly between the base unit and the display unit, wherein
the at least one hinge is adapted to allow an unlimited angle of
rotation of the display unit with respect to the base unit.
16. The rotatable display assembly of claim 1, wherein
the at least one pivotal means is pivotable about a vertical axis
when the base unit is horizontal and wherein the wireless
transmission system comprises a first optical transceiver in the
base unit and a second optical transceiver in the display unit,
wherein optical signals are transmitted between the first optical
transceiver and the second optical transceiver along a single
axis in a direction parallel to the vertical axis.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shindou (US 2007/0065158 Al; Mar. 22, 2007)
and Lev (US 2006/0203014 Al; Sept. 14, 2006) (see Final Act. 2-3).
Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shindou (see Final Act. 3).
2
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shindou and Schorpp (US 7,636,523 B2; Dec. 22, 2009)
(see id.). 3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. With respect to claims 1, 3-5, 9, and
11-13, we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own. However, regarding claims 16-19, we are persuaded by
Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred.
Claims 1 and 9
Appellant contends "Shindou fails to disclose the display unit
rotatably coupled to a base unit to allow an unlimited angle of rotation of the
display unit with respect to the base unit" (App. Br. 6). Referring to Figure
13 of Shindou, Appellant asserts cable 4 limits the rotation of the display or
moving part 3 with respect to the fixed part or base 1 (App. Br. 7).
Appellant further contends Lev includes no disclosure that indicates display
member 12 may have an unlimited angle of rotation of the display due to the
cables passing through the hinge (App. Br. 8). Lastly, Appellant argues the
Examiner fails to establish a valid rationale for the combination because the
cable extending through the vertical hinge of Lev would not allow an
unlimited angle of rotation (App. Br. 8-9).
3 The Examiner incorrectly omits Lev, which was relied on in rejecting base
claims 1 and 9, from the rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 12, and 13. We
consider this omission harmless error and consider these rejections as having
been made over Shindou and Lev or in combination with Schorpp.
3
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
The Examiner responds that, as stated in the Final Rejection, Figure 3
of Shindou was cited, and not Figure 13, as disclosing a wireless optical
connection for data transmission between the display and the base member
(Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner that Appellant's arguments do not
address the actual rejection set forth by the Examiner.
First, the Examiner has outlined the proposed rejection based on
combining the wireless connection of Shindou with Lev's hinge structure
that allows rotation around two different axes, as shown in Lev's Figures IA
and IB (Ans. 2-3). Second, the Examiner has explained that by providing
wireless optical connections between the display and the base member,
Lev's hinge rotates a complete circle and would have allowed "an unlimited
angle of rotation of the display unit with respect to the base unit," as recited
in claim 1 (Ans. 3). Third, contrary to Appellant's contention against the
combination (App. Br. 8-9), consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Examiner identifies
improvements made by the combination of Shindou and the hinge structure
of Lev for increased flexibility regarding the movement of the display unit.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[ e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting
to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art
designed to solve the same problem .... Common sense teaches
... that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Examiner has
articulated how the claimed features are suggested by the proposed
4
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
combination of the reference teachings with some rational underpinning.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Claims 16-19
With respect to claims 16-18, the Examiner explains:
In regard to claims 3, 11 and 16-1 7; Shindou et al teach optical
transmission system that has at least one transceiver in each of
the display and base (7a and 6b act as one transceiver, 6a and
7b act as the other transceiver) .... In regard to claims 16 and
18, Shindou et al in view of Lev et al teach that the at least one
pivotal means is pivotable about a vertical axis (figure lB of
Lev) when the base unit is horizontal and wherein optical
signals are transmitted between the first optical transceiver and
the second optical transceiver along a single axis in a direction
parallel to the vertical axis. . . . In regard to claim 17, it appears
that the transceivers are in line of sight. Optics that are not
through fibers generally operate line of site. It is well known in
small spaces and appears to be the case in the figures (see
specifically figure 5).
(Ans. 3.)
We agree with Appellant (App. Br. 10) that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Shindou with Lev discloses the recited "optical
signals along a single axis in a direction parallel to a vertical axis between a
base unit and a display unit" and "the second optical transceiver is in a line
of sight to the first of transceiver." As explained by Appellant (id.), the
optical path described in paragraphs 46-49 of Shindou is "reflected multiple
times and would therefore be transmitted along multiple axes within the light
propagation path forming members 16, 17." In response, the Examiner
points to Figures 1 and 8 of Shindou without explaining how the optical path
between transceivers 7 A and 6B on one hinge part and transceivers 6A and
5
Appeal2014-004666
Application 13/003,333
7B on the other hinge part would suggest that the optical transmission be
"along a single axis," in a "line of sight," or "a direction parallel to the
vertical axis." In that regard, Figures 1 and 8 merely depict a block diagram
of the device, but Figure 4 of Shindou illustrates a cross section of the actual
light path where optical signals are reflected off the reflective interior of the
space forming light path 9 (see Shindou, Figs. 4, 5; i-fi-1 46-50).
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above, as well as the rejections of
claims 3-5 and 11-13 which are not argued separately. We, however, do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 16-19.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 11-13 is
affirmed, but reversed with respect to claims 16-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6