Ex Parte Klinefelter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

12658496 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/658,496 02/08/2010 7590 PICCIONELLI & SARNO A Professional Association Suite 200 2801 Townsgate Road Westlake Village, CA 91361 04/28/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Glen Klinefelter 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. GT012 8099 EXAMINER OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/28/2016 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 ROBERT GLEN KLINEFELTER and GREGORY A. PICCIONELLI Appeal2014-000787 Application 12/658,496 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of the February 29, 2016, Decision on Appeal ("Decision"), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bennett, Flores, and Arai, and further in combination with the other cited prior art of record. We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants' arguments but, for the reasons given below, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any points in our Decision. Appellants argue that our decision misapprehended the Arai reference by relying on Arai as disclosing first and second display means positioned on two sides of a housing (Req. Reh' g 2). Appellants further argue Arai Appeal2014-000787 Application 12/658,496 describes a single panel display that uses polarization to display data that is viewable by users on both sides of the panel (id.). Referring to their Appeal Brief, Appellants state that this issue was raised on page 11 of the Brief as follows: Indeed, Arai does not appear to include any input means on either side of a housing (much less first and second input means for audio and visual information on the first and second sides of a housing, respectively). Instead, Arai describes a double sided display panel for displaying information, not for input of audio and visual information. (Req. Reh'g 2). These arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner relied on Arai as suggesting a dual sided display for user viewing on both sides (see Ans. 5 (citing Arai col. 1, 11. 10-19)). The Board adopted as its own the Examiner's findings and conclusions stated on pages 3-5 of the Answer which addressed the teachings of each reference (Decision 4 ). In fact, the Examiner properly reasoned the dual-sided display panel of Arai suggests placing the individual displays of the computer system disclosed by Bennett in a back-to-back arrangement (Ans. 4--5). Additionally, Appellants' argument regarding using polarization in displaying the same data on each side (Req. Reh' g 2) is not the same as the argument quoted from the Appeal Brief pointing out Arai has no input means on either side (App. Br. 11 ). Nonetheless, Arai was relied on as disclosing a dual display, which in combination with Bennett, would have suggested placing input means for user interaction on each side of a dual- sided display. We further observe that, in addition to using polarization for displaying on both sides, Arai discloses an alternative arrangement for a dual sided display that includes two back-to-back single-sided panel displays (see 2 Appeal2014-000787 Application 12/658,496 Arai, Fig. 1, col. 1, 11. 24--26), which provides the display arrangement for a dual display configuration when combined with the computer system of Bennett. DECISION Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellants' request to the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellants' request to make any changes therein. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(v). REHEARING DENIED 3