Ex Parte AURONGZEB et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

14444485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/444,485 07/28/2014 31625 7590 03/28/2019 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PA TENT DEPARTMENT 98 SAN JACINTO BL VD., SUITE 1500 AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR DEED ERM. AURONGZEB 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. 016295.5045 9401 EXAMINER RUMMEL, IAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): tracy .engberg@bakerbotts.com juli. tran@BakerBotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DEEDER M. AURONGZEB and STEP AN PEAN A Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 1 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAND. RANGE, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 14--26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P. (App. Br. 3). 2 Claims 1-13 have been withdrawn from consideration. (Final Act 1). Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 The claimed invention relates to a composite plastic display cover for use in an information handling system wherein a display covered by the composite plastic display cover is visible through the center portion of the base plastic cover sheet. (Spec. ,r 21; Fig. 2). Independent claim 14 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 14. A composite plastic display cover for use in an information handling system, comprising: a base plastic cover sheet that corresponds in size to the composite plastic display cover, the base plastic cover sheet including an edge portion and a center portion defined therein, wherein a display covered by the composite plastic display cover is visible through the center portion of the base plastic cover sheet; a strengthening layer applied to the edge portion, the strengthening layer including a polymeric composite coating; and a hardening layer applied to the base plastic cover sheet, the hardening layer including a nanoceramic layer. Claims Appendix to App. Br. The following rejection is presented for our review (Ans. 2): I. Claims 14--26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Difonzo (US 2013/0147330 Al), Asuka (US 2011/0003142 Al) and Maclaughlin (US 2011/0245640) and Poveda (US 2010/0302473 Al). The complete statement of the rejection on appeal appear in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2---6). 2 Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 OPINI0N3 After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and the Examiner, we REVERSE the appealed rejection. Our reasons follow: The Examiner found Difonzo teaches a composite plastic display cover that differs from the claimed invention by failing to explicitly state that the cover 10 features a center portion through which the display is visible. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner specifically states: Difonzo does not explicitly state that the cover 10 features a center portion through which the display is visible. It is, however, well- known in the art that such display housings may feature transparent central portions through which the display is visible. See, for example, Poveda's Abstract, Fig. 7, and ,r [0012], [0028]-[0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to supply the composite product of Difronzo with a center portion through which the display is visible, as Poveda explicitly teaches such a structure to be appropriate for use in device display housings. (Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner cited Asuka for teaching nanoceramic hardcoat layers and MacLaughlin for teaching the advantages of using anti-microbial coatings. (Final Act. 2 and 5). Appellants argue there is no teaching or suggestion in Difonzo that cover 32 has a center portion through which the display is visible. (App. Br. 7). Appellants argue the Examiner has not explained how the hard transparent coating of Asuka could ever be properly combined with the cover 32 in Difonzo, which is not transparent to visible light, to arrive at the 3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 14. 3 Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 features recited in claim 14. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue the Examiner has not clearly articulated how the teachings of Difonzo and Poveda would have been combined to arrive at the subject matter of claim 14, absent knowledge of claim 14. (App. Br. 9). During examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[T]he analysis that 'should be made explicit' refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court's analysis."). The Examiner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a composite plastic display cover wherein a display covered by the composite plastic display cover is visible through the center portion of the base plastic cover sheet as required by independent claim 14. The Examiner contends a search of prior art literature reveals a very large number of prior art references that teach transparent layers made from resin-impregnated glass or carbon fiber. 4 (Ans. 3--4; citing Kishimoto 4 When a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, that reference should be positively included in the statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970). 4 Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 US 2012/0058320). The Examiner, however, has failed to provide a reasoned explanation or evidence that establishes DiFonzo's display cover necessarily has a center portion through which the display is visible. The Examiner has also failed to include a reference in the statement of the rejection that exhibits a display cover having a center portion through which a display is visible. Second, the Examiner has failed to adequately articulate reasons for combining the teachings of Difonzo with Poveda to form a display cover having a certain portion through which a display is visible. The Examiner has not provided an adequate explanation why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Poveda to modify Difonzo. The Examiner has also failed to respond to Appellants' arguments that the thickness and weight of Poveda' s glass was not suitable for combining with the display cover of Difonzo. (App. Br. 9). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts. "Where the legal conclusion [ of obviousness] is not supported by facts it cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). 5 Appeal2018-006612 Application 14/444,485 Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14 for the reasons presented by Appellants and given above. We likewise reverse the Examiner's decision to reject dependent claims 15-26. DECISION The rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 14--26 are reversed. REVERSED 6