Ex Parte Gengler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2017

12954841 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
12/954,841 11/26/2010 David Gengler 26613-3002USI1 6323
95261 7590 08/30/2017
Durham Tones; Rr Pineaar P P
EXAMINER
Intellectual Property Law Group
P.O. Box 4050
LOPEZ CRUZ, DIMARY S
Salt Lake City, UT 84110 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2017 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):
ipmail@djplaw.com
ipmailslc @ djplaw.com
ckoy@djplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GENGLER
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—19 and 21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 26, 2010, the
Final Office Action mailed December 16, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal
Brief filed September 18, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed March 23, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed May 23, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ZAGG Intellectual Property
Holding Co., Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
The subject matter on appeal relates to a protective cover for a mobile
computing device and, more specifically, to hard covers for protecting the
displays, or screens, and housings of mobile computing devices while the
mobile computing devices are not in use. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the
claims on appeal.
1. A protective cover for a mobile computing device,
comprising:
a rigid base including an interior surface configured to be
positioned against a display of the mobile computing
device and including an elongated slot defined by a front
surface and a rear surface that extend across an entire
extent of the rigid base and a bottom surface extending
between the front surface and the rear surface, at least one
surf ace of the elongated slot configured to receive an
entire edge of the mobile computing device positioned in
an inclined orientation relative to the rigid base, with the
front surface abutting against a location of a front surface
of the mobile computing device located adjacent to the
edge and retaining the mobile computing device within the
elongated slot;
and
at least one retention element carried by the rigid base and
configured to engage a complementary element of the
mobile computing device to secure the rigid base in place
over the display of the mobile computing device without
the at least one retention element or the rigid base
extending over a back side of the mobile computing
device.
Appeal Br. 1 (Claims Appendix).
Independent claim 12, directed to a mobile computing system, and
independent claim 18, directed to a method for protecting a mobile
computing device, include similar recitations regarding the elongated slot of
2
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
the protective cover receiving an entire edge of the mobile computing
device, and the front surface of the elongated slot engaging locations of a
front surface of the mobile computing device as in claim 1.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 3—5, 8, 9, 10-12, and 15—18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 6,700,775
Bl, issued March 2, 2004) (“Chuang”), Ulla et al. (US 6,882,524 B2, issued
April 19, 2005) (“Ulla”), and Min (US 6,697,045 B2, issued February 24,
2004) (“Min”) (Final Act. 2-10, 1^U15); and
Rejection 2: Claims 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chuang, Ulla, and Min, and further
in view of Hynecek et al. (US 2010/0203931 Al, published August 12,
2010) (“Hynecek”) (Final Act. 10-14).
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) {cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections for
3
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add
the following.
Appellant argues the claims subject to the first ground of rejection as a
group. Appeal Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 5—7. We select claim 1 as representative
of the rejected claims, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
The dispositive issue before us in this appeal is: Has the Examiner
reversibly erred in finding that the combination of Chuang, Ulla, and Min
teaches or suggests a protective cover with a rigid base that includes an
“elongated slot configured to receive an entire edge of the mobile computing
device . . . with the front surface [of the elongated slot] abutting against a
location of a front surface of the mobile computing device” as recited in
claim 1? We answer this question in the negative.
During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health &
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give
claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification .... Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it
provides a definition for claim terms but, otherwise apply a broad
interpretation.”). Dictionary definitions may be used in tandem with the
specification to enlighten the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim
term. In re Trans Tex. Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298—99 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Appellant’s Specification does not define what is meant by “slot,”
but Appellant contends that based on its ordinary meaning, as evidenced by
Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slot (last visited
August 17, 2017), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “slot,”
4
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
consistent with Appellant’s Specification, is “a narrow, elongated
depression, groove, notch, slit, or aperture, especially a narrow opening for
receiving or admitting something, as a coin or a letter.”
The Examiner finds that Chuang discloses a protective cover for a
mobile computing device, comprising: cover body 21 (base) including an
interior surface configured to be positioned against display 12 of mobile
computing device 1 and including “a slot” (see Fig. 1, space (aperture) or
narrow opening between stop members 223 and folding limiting
members 222), extending the width of the cover, where at least one surface
of the slot is configured to receive an entire edge of mobile computing
device 1 (Fig. 2) positioned in an inclined orientation relative to the base.
Final Act. 2 (citing Chuang Figs. 1, 2, and 8); Ans. 2; see also Chuang 2:43—
3:38; Fig. 1 and 5. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument (Reply Br. 5), a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Chuang
teaches an “elongated slot” within scope of claim 1.
Even if the aperture or narrow opening between stop members 223
and folding limiting members 222 of Chuang’s cover is not considered to be
an “elongated slot” within the scope of claim 1, a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Min teaches a cover
comprising elongated slot 23a (chin) defined by a front surface and a rear
surface that extend across an entire extent of supporting board 23 and a
bottom surface extending between the front surface and the rear surface, and
the front face abutting against a location of a front surface of mobile
computing device 11 located adjacent to the edge and retaining mobile
computing device 11 within elongated slot 23a. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2—3;
Min 3:1—24; Fig. 3. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in
5
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
the art would have been led to modify Chuang’s protective cover to include
an elongated slot defined by a front surface and a rear surface that extend
across an entire extent of the rigid base and a bottom surface extending
between the front surface and the rear surface, and the front face abutting
against a location of a front surface of the mobile computing device located
adjacent to the edge and retaining the mobile computing device within the
elongated slot as taught by Min to provide Chuang’s protective cover with a
simple engaging mechanism to secure the mobile computing device when
the mobile computing device is positioned in an inclined orientation relative
to the base. Appellant does not challenge or identify error in the Examiner’s
reasoning for combining Chuang and Min to reach an elongated slot that
extends across the entire base. See Appeal Br. 6—8; see also Reply Br. 3—7.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 8,
9, 10-12, and 15—18 over Chuang, Ulla, and Min.
Rejection 2
Appellant argues that Hynecek lacks any teaching or suggestion of a
base with an elongated slot that (i) receives an entire edge of a mobile
computing device and (ii) that engages portions of a front surface of the
mobile computing device. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner does not rely on Hynecek for teaching or suggesting an elongated
slot. As discussed above with regard to Rejection 1, the Examiner relies on
Chuang alone, or Chuang in combination with Min for teaching or
suggesting an elongated slot as recited in the claims. As discussed above,
Appellant does not identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s finding and
reasoning in support of Rejection 1. Accordingly, for the same reasons
6
Appeal 2016-006017
Application 12/954,841
discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and
21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1—19 and 21 are
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).
AFFIRMED
7