Ex Parte Morino et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 201412348597 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TAKAYUKI MORINO, KIMIO KUMADA, TETSUYA OHTANI, and KENSHIN YONEMOCHI ____________ Appeal 2012-007143 Application 12/348,597 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Appeal 2012-007143 Application 12/348,597 2 anticipated by Novak (US 6,357,881 B1, issued Mar. 19, 2002).1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added): 1. A portable computer comprising: a system casing for accommodating a plurality of electronic devices; a keyboard assembly disposed on a surface of said system casing, wherein said keyboard assembly includes a plurality of keys movable upward and downward relative to said system casing; a palm rest covering a portion of said surface of said system casing; and an intermediate member disposed between said palm rest and said system casing,wherein said intermediate member includes a support portion disposed under said palm rest, wherein said support portion includes a plurality of supporting rib structures extended upward towards said palm rest along the direction in which said keys are to be depressed. ANALYSIS We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 2 and 7-10 is anticipated within the meaning of § 102 in view of the applied 1 Appellants do not contest the rejection under § 103 of dependent claims 5 and 6 (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. generally). The Examiner maintains this rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. We accordingly summarily affirm this rejection. Appeal 2012-007143 Application 12/348,597 3 prior art of Novak. Accordingly, we will sustain all of the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the Examiner’s Response to Argument section, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. “[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.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id. The only limitation in dispute for independent claim 1 is whether Novaks’s stiffening plate structure as depicted in Fig. 6 encompasses “a support portion disposed under the palm rest, wherein said support portion includes a plurality of supporting rib structures” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4, 5; Reply Br. 2). The Examiner explains that ‘rib’ can be defined as an elongated ridge” (Ans. 8) and that Fig. 6 of Novak has two such ribs/ridges (id.; also Ans. 9-10), one ridge/rib on each side of the opening 620. Appellants do not specifically dispute that these ridges may encompass the term “rib supporting structure”, but rather argue that they are not located under a palm rest, as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 2). This argument is unavailing, as Appellants designate the entire area 19 as a palm rest (see e.g. Spec. 5:8-9; Fig. 2). Novak’s ribs are located under a corresponding palm rest area (Novak, Fig. 6). Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position (Ans. 8-10). Notably, Appellants have not directed our attention to Appeal 2012-007143 Application 12/348,597 4 any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable, nor to any portion of the Specification that limits the definition of “supporting rib structures” to exclude the type of ribs found in Novak as pointed out by the Examiner. Appellants present separate arguments regarding dependent claims 9 and 2, arguing that the structure of the dimples of Novak do not meet the claim recitations (App. Br. 5, 6). However, Appellants have not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s position that the structure of the dimples of Fig. 5B located under the left hand palm rest portion and the right hand portion, respectively, as encompassing the claimed features of dependent claims 9 and 2 is unreasonable (App. Br.; Reply Br. generally; compare cross section of a dimple in Fig. 5B of Novak with Appellants’ cross section of its rib 105 at Fig. 6). As the Examiner points out, claim 9 does not require the recited plateau segments to be part of a rib structure (Ans. 11).2 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6. 2 Note that claim 2 as presented in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief is incorrect, since the Examiner did not enter the amendment after final to change its dependency from claim 1 to claim 9, filed on March 31, 2011 (see, Advisory Action mailed April 14, 2011). Appeal 2012-007143 Application 12/348,597 5 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. ORDER AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation