Ex Parte Dittus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

13913741 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/913,741 06/10/2013 Karl K. Dittos 39/XTUC920130043-US-NP 6554
128146 7590 08/09/2017
Zilka-Kotab, PC - Lenovo
1155 North First Street
Suite 105
San Jose, CA 95112
EXAMINER
WU, JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL K. DITTUS, DANIEL P. KELAHER, WILLIAM M.
MEGARITY, and JOHN P. SCAVUZZO
Applicant: LENOVO ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS (SINGAPORE) PTE.
LTD.
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARKNAGUMO, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—161. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant cancelled claim 9 in an amendment filed December 14, 2015,
and the Examiner confirmed entry of the amendment in an Advisory Action
entered January 15, 2016.
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim an apparatus comprising an electronics system
enclosure having a compartment adapted to receive a removable electronic
component, and a cam having a portion that extends into the compartment to
an extent sufficient to hinder insertion of the removable electronic
component, the cam having a surface configured and arranged to engage a
cam lever rotatably mounted to the removable electronic component. Claim
1; App. Br. 4. Appellants also claim a method comprising inserting a
removable electronic component into a compartment of an electronics
system enclosure, and causing a cam, having a portion extending into the
compartment to an extent sufficient to hinder insertion of the removable
electronic component, to deflect, permitting insertion of the component.
Claim 11; App. Br. 4—5.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an electronics system enclosure having:
a compartment adapted to receive a removable electronic
component; and
a cam having a portion extending, in a default
orientation, into the compartment sufficient to hinder insertion
of the removable electronic component, the portion including
first and second surfaces and configured and arranged to:
deflect, in response to a normal force applied to the
first surface and sufficient to permit the insertion of the
removable electronic component into the compartment,
from the defaultorientation to a modified orientation; and
return to the default orientation in absence of the
normal force; and the second surface configured and
arranged to:
2
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
engage a cam lever rotatably mounted to the
removable electronic component.
App. Br. 23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Answer
(“Ans.”) entered April 15, 2016, which the Examiner sets forth in the Final
Office Action entered July 27, 2015 (“Final Act.”)2:
I. Claims 1—5, 8, 10-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Casebolt et al. (US 6,490,153 Bl, issued December 3,
2002) in view of Liu et al. (US 7 ,656,658 B2, issued February 2, 2010);
II. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Casebolt in view of Liu and Erickson et al. (US 2004/0037049 Al, published
February 26, 2004);
III. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Casebolt in view of Liu and Yang et al. (US 6,318,679 Bl, issued November
20, 2001); and
IV. Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Casebolt in view of Liu and Flynn et al. (US 6,166,900, issued December
26, 2000).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—8 and 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in
the Appeal Brief and below.
2 Appellant’s cancellation of claim 9 on December 14, 2015 obviated the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
in the Final Office Action.
3
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
Independent claims 1 and 11 require a cam in an electronics system
enclosure to have a portion that extends into a compartment in a default
orientation sufficient to hinder insertion of a removable electronic
component, the portion including a surface configured and arranged to
engage a cam lever.
The Examiner relies on Casebolf s disclosure of a system for
mounting computer components comprising case 100 that includes hard
drive bay 98 (compartment), and hard drive assembly 54 removably
mounted in drive bay 98. Final Act. 4, 8; Casebolt col. 3,1. 66—col. 4,1. 2;
col. 4,11. 29—30; col. 5,11. 6—7; Figs. 1,3,4. Casebolt discloses that hard
drive assembly 54 comprises handle 78 having first latch 84. Casebolt col.
4,11. 7—9, 42-46, 52—54; Figs. 2, 3. The Examiner finds that first latch 84
corresponds to the cam lever recited in claim 1, and finds that handle 78
corresponds to the cam lever recited in claim 11. Final Act. 4, 8. Final Act
Casebolt discloses that hard drive bay 98 includes first notch 92 (col. 4,11.
55—57), and the Examiner finds that first notch 92 corresponds to a cam as
recited in claims 1 and 11. Final Act. 4, 8. Casebolt discloses that as hard
drive assembly 54 is inserted into bay 98 (compartment), handle 78 rotates
so that first latch 84 (cam lever) on handle 78 engages first notch 92 (cam)
on drive bay 98, locking handle 78 into the closed position (a surface of a
cam engaging a cam lever). Casebolt col. 5,11. 41—44; Figs. 5A—5C.
The Examiner finds that Casebolt does not disclose a cam having a
portion extending, in a default orientation, into a compartment sufficient to
hinder insertion of a removable electronic component, and configured and
arranged to deflect from the default orientation to a modified orientation, in
response to a normal force applied to a first surface sufficient to permit
4
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
insertion of the removable electronic component into the compartment, and
configured and arranged to return to the default orientation in the absence of
the normal force. Final Act. 4, 8. The Examiner relies on Liu for suggesting
these features missing from Casebolf s disclosures. Final Act. 4—5, 8—9.
Liu discloses a mounting apparatus for a data storage device that
includes bracket 50 having side panels 54. Liu col. 1,11. 7—9; col. 1,1. 63-
col. 2,1. 2; Fig. 2. Liu discloses that a pair of U-shaped elastic tabs 51 are
formed on one of the side panels 54, and Liu discloses that elastic tabs 51
correspond to holes 47 in the data storage device. Liu col. 2,11. 7—10; Figs.
2, 3. Liu discloses that each elastic tab 51 comprises an end integrally
connected with a side panel 54, a fixing portion 52 located in the middle of
tab 51, and a free end 53 disconnected from the side panel 54. Liu col. 2,11.
12—16; Fig. 4. Liu discloses that when storage device 40 is moved into
bracket 50, one side of storage device 40 urges fixing portion 52 of each tab
51 to flex out, allowing storage device 40 to enter bracket 50. Liu col. 2,11.
22—28. Liu discloses that when storage device 40 is pushed further into
bracket 50, holes 47 in storage device 40 align with fixing portions 52 of
tabs 51, allowing tabs 51 to rebound, and resulting in insertion of fixing
portions 52 into corresponding holes 47, thereby securing storage device 40
in bracket 50. Liu col. 2,11. 28—32.
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have
the portion extending, in a default orientation, into the
compartment sufficient to hinder insertion of the removable
electronic component and configured and arranged to: deflect, in
response to a normal force applied to the first surface and
sufficient to permit the insertion of the removable electronic
5
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
component into the compartment, from the default orientation to
a modified orientation; and return to the default orientation in
absence of the normal force in Casebolt, as taught by Liu, in
order to secure and align the removable electronic component
with elastic force inside the compartment without additional
fastener means such as bolts.
Final Act. 5, see also Final Act. 9.
However, the Examiner does not describe with specificity the nature
of the proposed modification of Casebolt’s structure based on the disclosures
of Liu. See generally Final Act. Due to this lack of specificity, as Appellant
argues in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner does not explain how the proposed
combination of Casebolt and Liu discloses or would have suggested a
portion of a cam that extends in a default orientation into a compartment
sufficient to hinder insertion of a removable electronic compartment. Nor
does the Examiner explain how the proposed combination discloses or
would have suggested a portion of a cam including a second surface
configured and arranged to engage a cam lever when in the default
orientation (i.e., protruding towards the inserted component), as required by
claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 10—11. Although the Examiner does not address
this argument in the Answer, the Examiner does refer to “making cam 92 of
Casebolt deflectable as taught by Liu” when responding to other arguments
raised by Appellant. Ans. 8.
Assuming that this modification constitutes the basis for the
Examiner’s rejection, which is not clear from the Final Action as indicated
above, the Examiner does not explain how “making cam 92 of Casebolt
deflectable as taught by Liu” would result in a portion of notch 92 extending
in a default orientation into bay 98 (compartment) sufficient to hinder
insertion of a removable electronic compartment, the portion of notch 92
6
Appeal 2016-006466
Application 13/913,741
including a surface configured and arranged to engage a cam lever. We note
that Figures 5A— 5C of Casebolt, which the Examiner relies on in the Final
Action, show that notch 92 protrudes outwardly from bay 98 away from the
interior space in bay 98 where hard drive assembly 54 is inserted. Making
notch 92 deflectable as proposed by the Examiner would not result in a
portion of notch 92 extending into bay 98, but would result in notch 92
continuing to protrude outwardly from bay 98. Even if notch 92 were made
deflectable and, like tab 51 of Liu, were made to protrude into the interior of
bay 98 towards the removable component when in the “default orientation,”
the Examiner does not explain what second surface of modified notch 92
would engage latch 84, as required by the appealed claims.
Accordingly, on this record, we concur with Appellant that the
Examiner’s evidence and explanation are insufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 11
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We therefore do not sustain the
rejections of these independent claims, and their dependent claims.
DECISION
For the reasons set forth above and in the Appeal Brief, the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1—8 and 10—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
7