Ex Parte AtkinsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 2, 201613003333 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation