Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

13435140 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
13/435,140 03/30/2012 Earl W. Moore 82961637 8286
22879
HP Tnr
7590 03/21/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
PARK, SANGHYUK
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EARL W. MOORE and PAUL N. WALKER
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final decisions rejecting claims 1—20. App. Br., Claims Appx.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
THE INVENTION
“Embodiments of the present invention disclose a removable input
device and assembly thereof.” Abst.
Independent claims 1 and 18 are reproduced, below, with emphasis on
disputed subject matter.
1. An assembly comprising:
a base frame having a cavity for receiving an input device, the
cavity being defined, in part, by two extended portions extending
from a main contact portion of the base frame;
a movable attachment member, comprising an axle support
member, formed on the base frame and configured to facilitate
attachment with a display device, wherein the axle support
member is positioned across an opening of said cavity between
ends of the two extended portions that are opposite the main
contact portion of the base frame; and
wherein the input device is configured to removably attach to and
from the base frame.
18. An assembly for a keyboard device and display device, the
assembly comprising:
a housing frame having an inner cavity area for receiving the
keyboard device, wherein the housing frame includes a rotatable
attachment member configured to facilitate docking of the
display device with the housing frame, and wherein the keyboard
device is configured to communicate wirelessly with the display
device;
wherein the display device is capable of rotation, supported on
the rotatable attachment member, when the display device is
docked with the housing frame; and
2
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
wherein the keyboard device is configured to removably attach
to the housing frame and slide out horizontally from the inner
cavity area of the housing frame so as to become detached from
the housing frame; and
wherein the attachment member allows the display device to
rotate parallel to and covering a side of the inner cavity area
such that a rear side of the display device, opposite a display
surface, is facing keys of the keyboard device so as to protectively
cover the keys of the keyboard device.
THE REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 10-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang (US 2011/0037701 Al; Feb. 17, 2011) and Okuley
(US 7,768,508; Aug. 3, 2010). Final Act. 3-9 (Aug. 28, 2014).
Claims 7, 9, 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Okuley, and Zhang (US 2010/0309143 Al; Dec. 9,
2010). Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Okuley, and Lev (US 2006/0203437 Al; Sept. 14,
2006). Final Act. 13.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wang, Okuley, Zhang, and Lev. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—9
Claim 1 stands rejected as obvious over Wang and Okuley. We first
address the Examiner’s findings with reference to Wang’s Figure 1,
reproduced below.
3
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
104 243
104
200
Wang’s Figure 1, reproduced above, is a perspective-view
illustration of Wang’s at-issue keyboard 10.
The Examiner reads claim 1 ’s limitations on Wang as follows: “input
device” reads on the keyboard body 100; “movable attachment member”
reads on the arms 220 and hinges 230; “axle support member” reads on the
hinges 230; and “base frame” reads on the outer member 240, arms 220, and
hinges 230. Final Act. 3; Ans. 17.
Appellants argue2 “[cjlearly, the hinge (230). . . does not extend
‘across an opening of said cavity between ends of the two extended portions
that are opposite the main contact portion of the base frame.’ (Claim 1).”
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
2 Appellants present additional arguments for the patentability of claim 1 in
their Appeal Brief. Because the identified argument is dispositive, we do
not reach the merits of the additional arguments.
4
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We find the claim limitation,
when read in its entirety and in light of the Specification, requires the axle
support member to cross the opening of the cavity from one extended
portion to the other. For example, Appellants identify element 107 in Figure
IB of their Specification as depicting an example of the claimed axle
support member. Element 107 of Figure IB extends across cavity 101 from
one extended portion (114b) to the other (114c). The Examiner finds
Wang’s “hinge 230 is positioned horizontally across the opening, which is
created by the keyboard moving away from the U-shape and is between the
two extension arms 220.” Ans. 16. Although we agree that Wang’s hinges
(230) are oriented in a direction to cross the cavity, neither hinge is long
enough to cross (i.e., be positioned across) the cavity from one arm (220) to
the other (220).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2—9, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 10—17
Appellants group independent claim 10 with independent claim 1 in
their Appeal Brief, arguing both together. See App. Br. 10. However, claim
10 does not include the same limitations as claim 1 and Appellants do not
offer arguments for separate patentability of claim 10 or its dependent
claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and its
dependent claims 11—17.
5
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
Claim 18
Claim 18 stands rejected as obvious over Wang and Okuley.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to show, as found, Okuley teaches
claim 18’s rotatable attachment member. App. Br. 14—18. We first address
the Examiner’s findings with reference to Okuley’s cited Figures 2A and 2C.
The figures are reproduced, below, with our annotations “A” and “B”.
Okuley’s Figure 2A, above, illustrates a perspective view of
Okuley’s at-issue device (first-disclosed embodiment);
particularly as configured to a “notebook PC” form factor by
moving the display’s sliding hinge 222 to position “A” (our
annotation) at the top end of the keyboard.3
3 Reference numeral “222” tags a track of the sliding hinge 222. Depending
on the context, Okuley uses “hinge 222” to denote the components for
6
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
Okuley’s Figure 2C, above, illustrates a perspective view of the
same at-issue device (i.e., shown in Figure 2A); particularly as
configured to a “tablet PC” form factor by moving the display’s
sliding hinge 222 to position “B” (our annotation) at the bottom
end of the keyboard.
Okuley’s Figures 2A and 2C, above, illustrate the same device in
respective configurations. Okuley col. 2,11. 53—58. Figure 2A shows the
device in a notebook PC form achieved by moving the sliding hinge 222 to
position “A” at the top end of the keyboard frame 266. Id.', see also Okuley
Fig. 1 (better illustrating a sliding hinge 122). Figure 2C shows the same
device in a tablet PC form achieved by sliding the hinge 222 to position “B”
at the bottom end of the keyboard frame 266. Id.
As noted supra, Appellants dispute that Okuley teaches claim 18’s
“[rotatable] attachment member allowing] the display device to rotate
rotation (e.g., pins) and/or components for sliding (e.g., tracks). We use
“hinge 222” to denote the pins and related components; that is, to denote the
parts and locations providing rotation of display 214 and keyboard frame
266 with respect to one another.
7
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
parallel to and covering a side of the inner cavity area such that a rear side of
the display device, opposite a display surface, is facing keys of the keyboard
device so as to protectively cover the keys of the keyboard device.” The
Examiner reads claim 18’s rotatable attachment member on Okuley’s hinge
222 as configured in the tablet PC form of Figure 2C; i.e., as achieved at
position “B”. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 18—19.
Appellants argue:
[T]here is no reason to conclude, based solely on the disclosure
of Okuley that the keyboard device is present in Fig. 2C and that
the rear of the display device is facing the keys[.]
The description in Okuley of the relationship between the
different configurations shown and what operations are
performed to convert between configurations is extremely
sparse. Thus, it appears that the Action is reading a great deal of
subject matter into Okuley based on impermissible hindsight
using Appellant's own disclosure.
App. Br. 16—17.
We are unpersuaded. Okuley plainly states that sliding of the hinge
222 from point “A” to point “B” converts the at-issue device from the
notebook PC form (Figure 2A) to the tablet PC form (Figure 2C). Okuley
col. 2,11. 53—58. An artisan would accordingly infer the keyboard 226 as
identically situated by the notebook PC form and tablet PC form; that is,
understand Figure 2 A as showing the arrangement of the keyboard 222 for
both forms. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007) (“[A] court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is
8
Appeal 2015-007429
Application 13/435,140
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom”). Note also, even assuming no such inference
would be drawn from Figures 2A and 2C alone, Okuley’s Figure 4B plainly
illustrates a hinge 422 sliding over a keyboard 426. The illustration
confirms that reconfiguring of the at-issue device, from the notebook PC
form to tablet PC form, does not entail rearranging of the keyboard 222 in a
way that would make the keys face away from the display. See also Okuley
col. 4,11. 6—7 (“The apparatus 400 may be similar to or identical to the
apparatus 100 described above.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants present no error in the
Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 18.
Claims 19—20
Under Appellants’ arguments, claims 19—20 fall with claim 18.
App. Br. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 19-20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9