Ex Parte Morino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2014

12348597 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2014)

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