Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2020001537 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
14/971,596 12/16/2015 Ali Kathryn Ent RPS920150214 018-019 1833
124906 7590 06/02/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
TEITELBAUM, MICHAEL E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
docket@splglaw.com
jleclair@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALI KATHRYN ENT, CUONG HUY TRUONG,
BRIAN WILLIAM WALLACE, and THOMAS PERELLI
_____________

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “electronic devices that have detachable
electronic accessories.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1–22 are pending; claims 1, 11,
13, and 21 are independent. Appeal Br. 55–59. Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, and 15
are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Final Act. 2. Claim 1
is reproduced below for reference:
1. An electronic assembly, comprising:
an electronic device having a housing and one or more
processors to manage operation of the electronic device, the one
or more processors provided within the housing, the housing
including a device alignment feature and device connector; and
a self-aligning electronic accessory including a body that
houses one or more of a processor, wireless transceiver, local
storage, speakers, camera and infrared sensor, the body including
an accessory alignment feature and accessory connector, the
accessory alignment feature and accessory connector spaced and
dimensioned apart from each other to align with the respective
device alignment feature and device connector, the self-aligning
electronic accessory directly mounted onto the electronic device.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Rohrbach US 2007/0072443 A1 Mar. 29, 2007
Rapp US 2008/0070500 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
Klarke US 2013/0111521 A1 May 2, 2013
Thiers US 2017/0062999 A1 Mar. 2, 2017

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

3
Claims 1–4, 8, 11–14, 16, 17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rohrbach, Rapp, and Klarke. Final
Act. 2.2
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rohrbach, Rapp, Klarke, and Thiers. Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). We
disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with
our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellant argues that “the claimed electronic assembly cannot fairly
be interpreted to merely refer to Rohrbach’s electrical plug” (Appeal Br. 16),
because
in every embodiment in Rohrbach, the plug is joined to a
physical cable that is in turn connected to a physically separate
device, namely device 50. Rohrbach does not describe the
physical components within device 50. Regardless, the device
50 is separate and distinct from the plug 110 and plug body
112.

2 The heading of the rejection incorrectly lists claim 7 instead of claim 8 as
rejected. Final Act. 2, 9. The heading of the rejection incorrectly lists claim
15 as rejected, whereas claim 15 is indicated as containing allowable subject
matter. Final Act. 2. The heading of the rejection also omits reference to
claims 19 and 20; claims 19 and 20 stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Rohrbach, Rapp, and Klarke. Final Act. 2, 11. We find these to constitute
harmless error.
Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

4
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis removed). Appellant contends that “[t]he Final
Office Action interpret[ation] on page 4 . . . is improperly equating the
magnets in Rohrbach with the device and accessory self-alignment features
described in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 17, citing Rohrbach Fig. 3, Spec. Figs.
1A–B. Appellant further argues that “Rapp does not describe the self-
aligning of claim 1” (Appeal Br. 19), and that a comparison of portions of
Rapp to Appellant’s disclosure indicates that “the terms self-aligning, self-
alignment and the like are quite clear.” Appeal Br. 21, citing Rapp ¶¶ 3, 47,
Fig. 10, Spec. ¶¶ 34–39, Fig. 1B. Appellant contends that “Rapp renders
Rohrbach unsuitable for its intended purpose” because “Rapp’s intended use
is eliminating direct electrical contact for control and inter-module
communication” whereas “Rohrbach clearly describes a direct electrical
contact.” Appeal Br. 22 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Rohrbach’s magnetically connected electronics teaches the
claimed electronic assembly and Rohrbach’s second device 60 teaches the
claimed electronic device. Ans. 14; Rohrbach Fig. 3. Regarding the
claimed “accessory alignment feature and accessory connector,” the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Rohrbach clearly teaches magnet 130 [and] magnet 170
[correspond to accessory and device alignment features], [and]
electrical contact 120 and electrical contact 160 [correspond to
accessory and device connectors] [that are] separate and distinct
components, i.e. they are each separately labeled distinct
features as disclosed

(Ans. 15), and Rohrbach Figure 4 illustrates that “device feature and
connector 170 and 160 are included within the electronic device 60” and
Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

5
“magnet 130, magnet 170, electrical contact 120 and electrical contact 160
are all spaced and dimensioned in such a way that they fit together when
properly connected.” Ans. 15.
Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation of the
term “self-aligning” to “include any feature that would allow two connectors
to be guided into an appropriate alignment when they are within some
proximity of each other” (Ans. 16 (emphasis omitted), citing Spec. ¶ 36) is
in error. We agree with the Examiner that “Rohrbach teaches the magnetic
coupling which by definition will experience a force when sufficiently
close” and Rapp teaches “the explicit use of the term ‘self-aligning’ within
the context of using magnetic forces to self-align electronic devices.” Ans.
16. Appellant’s comparison of portions of Rapp to Appellant’s disclosure,
in contrast, does not show patentable differences between Rapp and the
claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 21.
Regarding the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of Rohrbach
and Rapp, we further agree with the Examiner that “[t]he prior art invention
being modified is Rohrbach therefore, the intended use of Rapp is not under
scrutiny” (Ans. 17), and that “those of ordinary skill would understand that
borrowing a known connector device from a disclosed prior art invention
would not require borrowing the entire device.” Ans. 17. In sum, we find
no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings with respect to Rapp and
Rohrbach, and Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings as no
Reply was filed.

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

6
Appellant further argues that Klarke lacks the “self-aligning feature”
(Appeal Br. 23) and does not overcome “the deficiency of modifying
Rohrbach with Rapp.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant contends “Klarke
describes a direct electrical contact for data communication and/or control
signals” that is “a clear conflict between the intended purposes of Klarke and
Rapp.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant further contends that the rejection “is
applying improper hindsight reconstruction” and “no legitimate rationale for
the modification [of Rohrbach with Klarke] is provided.” Appeal Br. 24, 25.
Appellant further contends “the person of ordinary skill would have exactly
the opposite motivation, namely to NOT make the suggested modification.”
Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis omitted).
Regarding “the intended purposes of Klarke and Rapp” (Appeal Br.
24), we find this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed
above regarding combining the teachings of Rohrbach and Rapp. We agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention,
would combine Klarke’s electronic connection teachings with the other
references in the manner claimed. See Ans. 19. Particularly, we agree with
the Examiner’s reasoning showing that one skilled in the art would combine
the teachings of Klarke with those of Rohrbach. Ans. 6, citing Klarke ¶ 4.3
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Rohrbach itself teaches
the present disclosure is applicable to various types of
connectors, which provide electrical connection in the form of

3 We separately note that Rohrbach, alone, teaches the accessory body
houses one or more of a processor, wireless transceiver, local storage,
speakers, camera and infrared sensor, as claimed. Rohrbach discloses the
plug can include “logic circuitry” or “identification circuitry.” Rohrbach
¶ 64, 74; see also Rohrbach ¶¶ 62, 69, 70, and 78.

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

7
power and/or signals between an electronic device and any of a
number of electronic devices or electrical relations.

Rohrbach ¶ 82; Ans. 19–20. Klarke, further, teaches the benefits of
connecting modules with different functionality. See Klarke ¶¶ 4, 16.
Artisans of ordinary skill in the art, having reviewed the teachings of
Rohrbach, Rapp, and Klarke, would place Klarke’s circuitry inside
Rohrbach’s device as modified by Rapp to arrive at the claimed self-aligning
electronic accessory, because “those of ordinary skill would certainly
understand that any electrical connection technology, would on the whole be
applicable to other types of connection as connectors often share common
features such as male and female ends, specific pin configurations, fasteners
etc.” Ans. 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2 and 3 not separately
argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 41–42. While Appellant
separately argues the rejection of independent claims 11, 13, and 21 (see
Appeal Br. 27–41), the arguments substantially replicate the arguments
submitted for independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections using the reasoning above. Similarly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22 not
separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 43–46, 50–52.

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

8
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites
The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the body of the
electronic accessory is elongated and includes a mating face to
directly mount onto the housing, the accessory alignment
feature includes a standoff that projects outward from the
mating face by a height greater than a height of an outer surface
of the accessory connector, the device alignment feature
including a cavity within a mating face provide on the housing,
the standoff sized and dimensioned to fit the cavity in
connection with self-alignment.

Appellant argues that “Rohrbach does not teach or suggest any
structure that could be legitimately interpreted as a standoff,” because in two
embodiments illustrated in Rohrbach, “the magnet is embedded within the
plug body, while the electrical contacts project outward beyond the magnet.”
Appeal Br. 43, citing Rohrbach Figs. 6–7.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that
Rohrbach teaches in Figure 7 guides 119 and 159. Guide 119 is
clearly a standoff that is clearly sized and dimensioned to fit
inside the cavity of guide 159. Furthermore, [Rohrbach ¶ 39] in
reference to these features Rohrbach teaches they are used for
proper alignment.

Ans. 21. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s detailed
findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, as well
as claim 16 commensurate in scope.

Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

9
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites
The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the electronic
device comprises a display presenting video content that is
received by the electronic accessory and conveyed from the
electronic accessory to the electronic device through the
accessory and device connectors.

Appellant argues that each of Rohrbach, Rapp, and Klarke “has a
single connection point” and “[i]t follows that each reference separately and
in combination fail to disclose the subject matter of claim 8, which does
describe and illustrate that video is conveyed through the accessory and
device connectors.” Appeal Br. 50.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that
Accessory connectors are interpreted elements that make an
electrical connection and are located on the accessory device.
Device connectors are interpreted elements that make an
electronic connection and are located on the electronic device.
Klarke teaches a plurality of leads 208 in Figure 3 located on an
accessory, internet access card 102. This means that Klarke
teaches plural accessory connectors (leads 208). Klarke further
teaches transmitting video from access card 102 to television
100 which clearly has a reciprocal connection point such that
mating between the card 102 and television 100 can occur as in
Figure 1. For further clarification Table 1 in [Klarke ¶ 19]
teaches the pinout of the connectors in which various pins are
used for HDMI outputting. This is equivalent video that is
conveyed through accessory and device connectors.

Ans. 22–23. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
detailed findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

10
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites
The electronic assembly of claim 1, wherein the accessory
connector is located within the accessory alignment feature and
the device connector is located within the device alignment
feature.

Appellant argues that “Thiers discloses a single connector port”
(Appeal Br. 48), whereas
the claim language of claim 6 states that the accessory
connector is located within the accessory alignment feature and
the device connector is located within the device alignment
feature. In the current application the accessory connector and
the device connector are separate and distinct, unlike Thiers.

Appeal Br. 48, citing Thiers ¶ 38, Fig. 1.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that
[a]s can be seen from [Thiers’] Figure 1 and further clarification
using [Thiers ¶ 39] the connecting system 12 may include an
alignment feature 25 for magnetically coupling the electronic
device 14 with the dock interface assembly 40. Dock housing
41 or magnet holder 46 may have a corresponding alignment
feature such as an outer perimeter to be received by the
alignment feature 25. Examiner interprets that the dock
interface assembly 40 is equivalent to an accessory and the
outer perimeter of the dock housing 41 or magnet holder 46 is
equivalent to an accessory alignment feature. Electronic device
14 is equivalent to an electronic device and alignment feature
25 is equivalent to a device alignment feature.

Ans. 21. We further agree with the Examiner that “[t]he conductive traces
32 and contacts 50 are equivalent to connectors because this is where the
electrical connection takes place” and “traces 32 are located inside of circle
Appeal 2020-001537
Application 14/971,596

11
defined by alignment feature 25 and contacts 50 are located inside of outer
perimeters 41 or 46. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met.” Ans. 22,
citing Thiers ¶ 38, Fig. 1. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s detailed findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, as well
as claim 18 commensurate in scope.

DECISION SUMMARY

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 11–
14, 16, 17,
19– 22
103 Rohrbach,
Rapp, Klarke
1–4, 8,
11–14, 16,
17, 19–22

6, 18 103 Rohrbach,
Rapp, Klarke,
Thiers
6, 18
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–4, 6, 8,
11–14,
16–22