Ex Parte Finke-Anlauff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 11, 2013

11104380 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

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. 11/104,380 04/12/2005 Andrea Finke-Anlauff 800.0741.U1 (US) 1707 10948 7590 04/12/2013 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 Research Drive, Suite 202 Shelton, CT 06484 EXAMINER LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2697 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/12/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ANDREA FINKE-ANLAUFF, TORSTEN GUNTHER, and LUTZ CORDES _____________ Appeal 2010-011772 Application 11/104,380 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011772 Application 11/104,380 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed a multifunction electronic device such as a cellular telephone which has a body with a hinged cover that contains a keyboard. See page 3, and figures 1, 2 and 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. An electronic device comprising: a body having top and bottom surfaces, said body having a longitudinal axis and being adapted to enclose a plurality of electronic components arranged within the body to provide at least a first application and a second application; a display screen mounted on the top surface of the body, said display having a longitudinal axis parallel to and substantially coextensive with the longitudinal axis of the body, said display adapted to display data and images in operational association with the plurality of electronic components; a cover connected to the body by hinges, said hinges constructed to allow the relative pivotal movement of said cover on said body, about an axis parallel to said longitudinal axis of the display from a first position covering the display to a second position at which the display is fully uncovered, and wherein said cover is transparent allowing the viewing of at least a portion of the display screen in the first position; and a full function text keyboard mounted on the cover, said keyboard electrically connected in operative association with said display and at least some of the plurality of components, to allow the input and display of data and images in the first application, and wherein the keyboard is arranged on the cover in alignment with said longitudinal axis of the display for operation in the closed position, and; Appeal 2010-011772 Application 11/104,380 3 further wherein the display is operable as a touch sensitive display in the second position, to allow the input and display of data and images in the second application. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2001/0034229A1), Iwata (U.S. 6,535,749 B1) and Janninck (U.S. 2003/0017810 A1). Answer 4-9.1 ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 3 through 9 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error. Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Park, Iwata and Janninck do not disclose the claimed arrangement of the display, cover and keyboard. Brief 5. Appellants argue Park does not teach a cover along a longitudinal axis and that while Iwata discloses a cover hinged along a parallel longitudinal axis, the Examiner has not provided proper motivation to combine these features of Park, Iwata and Janninck. Brief 6-7. Further, Appellants argue (1) Iwata does not disclose a full function text keyboard mounted on a cover, (2) Park does not teach the keyboard on the cover and (3) Janninck’s keyboard is aligned in a different manner than claimed. Brief 8-9. Thus, Appellants conclude that a skilled artisan would not combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention; rather, Appellants assert the combined teachings of the references show “keypads that are telephone style keypads oriented in Appeal 2010-011772 Application 11/104,380 4 the standard fashion under a display that is oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis of the device.” Brief 9. Thus, Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner properly find that the skilled artisan would combine the longitudinally mounted display and cover of Iwata and QWERTY keyboard of Janninck with Park’s device? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the skilled artisan would combine the longitudinally mounted display and cover of Iwata and QWERTY keyboard of Janninck with Park’s device. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive explanation of how each of the references teaches the individual features. Answer 9-10. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and consider the combination of these features to be nothing more than using known elements to perform their known function. On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated December 10, 2009, Reply Brief dated June 23, 2010, and the Examiner’s Answer dated April 26, 2010. Appeal 2010-011772 Application 11/104,380 5 v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).2 Further, we note that Appellants’ arguments are directed to the Park’s keyboard not being on the cover as it is covered by another item, item 16, is not persuasive. There is no claim limitation precluding there being two covers, and despite having a second cover, the keyboard does cover the display. Further, we also note that Park provides suggestion to use a full function keyboard. See Park, paragraph 48. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11 is 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). AFFIRMED msc 2 See also Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “adaptation of an old idea or invention…using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art” (i.e., updating a children’s toy with modern electronic components to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation), would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled artisans).