S., Arvind

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 7, 2019

14142485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2019)

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. 14/142,485 12/27/2013 Arvind S. P62668 2433 104333 7590 11/07/2019 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. 13231 Champion Forest Drive Suite 410 Houston, TX 77069 EXAMINER CUNNINGHAM, XANTHIA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2835 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2019 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): Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ARVIND S Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Primary Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–10, 26, 28, 33–35, 37, and 38.2 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 and as listed in the Corrected Application Data Sheet filed May 7, 2015—namely, Intel Corporation, which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2). 2 See Appeal Br. 4–15; Reply Brief filed November 7, 2018 (“Reply Br.”) at 1–4; Final Office Action entered January 30, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 3–13; Examiner’s Answer entered September 7, 2018 (“Ans.”) at 2–21. Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 2 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to a computing device (e.g., an all-in-one system or a mobile device) with an integrated lens in the device’s cover layer (Specification filed December 27, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶ 1). Figure 1, which the Appellant acknowledges as illustrative of the invention recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 2–3), is reproduced from the Drawings filed December 27, 2013 with some annotations added, as follows: Figure 1 above depicts a computing device 100 with a width dimension 106 having a display with a display cover 102, which may be glass or transparent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), a speaker grille 104, and integrated lenses 108 and 110 on the display cover 102 and speaker grille 104, respectively (Spec. ¶¶ 21–33). According to the Specification, the speaker grille 104 may be optically non-transparent (id. ¶ 17). Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 3 Figure 2, which the Appellant acknowledges as illustrative of dependent claim 2 (Appeal Br. 11), is reproduced with some annotations added, as follows: Figure 2 above depicts a sectional view of a display 200 having, inter alia, a lens 108 (likely mislabeled as 106) integrated into a display cover 102 (e.g., PMMA), which is disposed over a touchscreen sensor 204, a display panel 214, and a light source 218 (Spec. ¶¶ 34–38). Because the display cover 102 is disposed over the touchscreen 204, the display panel 214, and the light source 218, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Figure 2 that the display cover 102 must necessarily be light- transmissive or transparent. Representative claims 1 and 2 are reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows: 1. A computing device comprising: a display panel; a cover layer having an integrated lens formed at a location along the cover layer, wherein a majority of the cover layer is not Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 4 transmissive for visible wavelengths, and wherein the integrated lens is an optical lens comprising a curved surface; and a sensor associated with the lens. 2. The computing device of claim 1, wherein the cover layer comprises a display cover disposed over the display panel. (Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added)). II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as follows: A. Claims 1, 2, 6–8, 10, 26, 33–35,3 37, and 38 as unpatentable over Kwong et al.4 (“Kwong”) and Reid et al.5 (“Reid”); B. Claims 3 and 9 as unpatentable over Kwong, Reid, and Takahashi et al.6 (“Takahashi”); C. Claim 4 as unpatentable over Kwong, Reid, and Faris;7 D. Claim 5 as unpatentable over Kwong, Reid, and Betensky et al.8 (“Betensky”); and E. Claim 28 as unpatentable over Kwong, Reid, and McEldowney.9 3 Claim 35 was omitted from the statement of the rejection but was indicated as rejected in the discussion of the rejection (Final Act. 3, 6). 4 US 2014/0184521 A1, published July 3, 2014. 5 US 2014/0111926 A1, published April 24, 2014. 6 US 7,466,540 B2, issued December 16, 2008. 7 US 6,917,391 B1, issued July 12, 2005. 8 US 2016/0034772 A1, published February 4, 2016. 9 US 2012/0051588 A1, published March 1, 2012. Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 5 (Ans. 2–21; Final Act. 3–13.) III. DISCUSSION 1. Grouping of Claims With respect to Rejection A, the Appellant provides arguments only for the two independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 7) collectively and dependent claim 2 (Appeal Br. 5–11). Therefore we decide the appeal as to Rejection A solely on the basis of representative claims 1 and 2, with all other claims standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). As for Rejections B through E, the Appellant relies on the same arguments offered for claim 1, adding only that the other prior art references do not disclose or suggest the disputed limitation highlighted in reproduced claim 1 above (Appeal Br. 12–14). Therefore, we decide these rejections on the same basis as that for Rejection A (claim 1). 2. The Examiner’s Position The Examiner finds that Kwong describes a computing device comprising a display panel, a cover layer having an integrated lens, and a sensor associated with the lens (Final Act. 3 (citing Kwong ¶ 18, which pertains to the device shown in Figures 1A–1B)). The Examiner acknowledges that “Kwong does not expressly disclose wherein a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds, however, that Reid discloses a device in which a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths (id. (citing Reid ¶ 38, which pertains to the computing device shown in, e.g., Fig. 1)). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 6 Kwong and Reid in the manner claimed by the Inventor “to enhance the overall appearance of the display by hiding operational and structural components as well as focusing attention onto the active area of the display” (id.). 3. The Appellant’s Contentions Referring to the Specification (¶ 17) and the Drawings (Fig. 4), the Appellant contends that “the entire cover layer, except for the lenses, can be ‘not transmissive of visible wavelengths[,]’” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7). In the Appellant’s own words, “[a]s these optical lenses are recited in the claims as being integrated into the cover layer, . . . independent claims 1 and 7 recite, inter alia, ‘a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths’” (id.). The Appellant argues that, by contrast, Kwong does not disclose the disputed claim limitation (“a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths,”) highlighted above in reproduced claim 1 but, instead, describes a display screen 116 that is under a touch screen cover 102 and touch screen sensor 104 (id. at 7–8 (citing, e.g., Kwong ¶ 15 and Figs. 1A–1B)). The Appellant argues that “it would be improper to combine a reference[, i.e., Reid,] showing non-transmissive cover layers with Kwong because then the Kwong touch screen cover layer, which is currently lacking the asserted subject matter, would block the Kwong display were it to be not non-transmissive” (Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis original)). Regarding Reid, the Appellant argues that Reid teaches a display trim 124, which “is not covering ‘a majority of the cover layer’ as the trim is not the ‘majority’ of the cover layer” and that any claim interpretation to the contrary is unreasonable (id. at 9–10 (referring to Reid Fig. 1)). Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 7 4. Opinion The Appellant’s arguments lack discernible merit and, therefore, fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We start by ascertaining the scope and meaning of the disputed claim limitation—i.e., “wherein a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths” in claim 1. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[T]o properly compare [the prior art] . . . with the claims at issue, we must construe the [disputed limitation] . . . to ascertain its scope and meaning.”). The disputed limitation does not appear in haec verba in the Specification, as originally filed. Indeed, the phrase “not transmissive for visible wavelengths” was introduced into claim 1 by an Amendment that accompanied a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed June 30, 2017. That phrase replaced the previous language “not optically transparent,” which was also introduced into claim 1 by an Amendment that accompanied an earlier RCE filed October 11, 2016. Certain portions of the Specification (Spec. ¶¶ 17, 43) and Figure 4 were cited as support for the phrase “not transmissive for visible wavelengths” (Remarks filed June 30, 2017 at 9). The only disclosure in Paragraphs 17 and 43 of the Specification possibly relating to “not transmissive for visible wavelengths” is in the context of certain lenses included in a speaker cover grille that is optically non-transparent. These paragraphs do not mention any display cover—for either the front or back of the device—that is not transmissive to visible light or wavelengths, and, indeed, if the display cover 404 as shown in Figure 4 Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 8 below were not transmissive to visible light, the display would not be viewable or usable. Specifically, Figure 4 (annotated) is reproduced, as follows: Figure 4 above depicts a computing device 400 having a speaker (cover) grille 408 with a lens 410 and sensor 416, a display 402, and a display cover 404 (desirably transparent PMMA) with lenses 412 and 414 and sensors 418 and 420 (Spec. ¶¶ 41–45).10 10 The Appellant argues that the current application discloses non- transparent cover layers for the back of a device (Reply Br. 2). That Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 9 In view of the relevant disclosures in the Specification and Drawings discussed above, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “cover layer” in claim 1 reads on any layer that covers any portion of the claimed device, such as—but not limited to—the speaker cover grille that does not render the device inoperative or unusable. Under that interpretation, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Specifically, Kwong’s Figure 2 (annotated) is reproduced, as follows: argument is specious as the Appellant does not direct us to any descriptions relating to the back of a device. Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 10 Kwong’s Figure 2 above depicts an electronic device 200 (a laptop) having, inter alia, a display screen 116, a transparent or semi-transparent touch screen cover 102 with an integrated camera lens element 106, and a camera sensor 112 (not shown in Figure 2) (Kwong ¶¶ 11, 16, 18). As seen in Figure 1A (not reproduced), Kwong’s touch screen cover 102 appears to cover most of the display area. As the Examiner finds, Kwong’s device differs from the device recited in claim 1 in that the prior art device does not include any “cover layer” in which the majority of its surface “is not transmissive for visible wavelengths” as required claim 1. Reid’s Figure 1 (annotated) is reproduced, as follows: Reid’s Figure 1 above depicts a portable computing device 100 including, inter alia, a display 120 and a display trim 124 with an integrated image capture device 126 (Reid ¶¶ 35–39). According to Reid, “[d]isplay trim 124 Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 11 can be formed of an opaque material such as ink deposited on top of or within a protective layer of display 120” and that such “[d]isplay trim 124 can enhance the overall appearance of display 120 by hiding operational and structural components as well as focusing attention onto the active area of display 120” (id. ¶ 38). Based on the collective teachings found in Kwong and Reid, we agree with the Examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate an opaque display trim, such as that shown in Reid, in Kwong’s laptop device, thus arriving at a modified computing device that meets all the limitations recited in claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the advantages of such an opaque display trim as disclosed in Reid—i.e., “enhance the overall appearance of [the] display . . . by hiding operational and structural components as well as focusing attention onto the active area of [the] display” (id.). As required by claim 1, a majority of the opaque display trim (i.e., a “cover layer” as recited in claim 1), when implemented in Kwong’s device based on Reid’s teachings, would not be transmissive to visible wavelengths. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection as maintained against claim 1. As for separately argued claim 2, the Appellant refers to Figure 2 (reproduced above) of the subject application as showing the further limitations recited in the claim (Appeal Br. 11). The Appellant argues: If an opaque property of Reid were combined with the cover layer 102 located over the entire display screen 116 as asserted by the Examiner in the Final Office Action such that “a majority of the cover layer is not transmissive for visible wavelengths,” then in the claim 2 configuration “wherein the cover layer comprises a display cover disposed over the display panel” the Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 12 majority of the cover layer would be covering and blocking a majority of the display screen 116 in Kwong. (Id.). The problem with the Appellant’s argument, however, is that claim 2 does not appear to require a cover layer that is both not transmissive to visible wavelengths and covers most of the display panel. Indeed, the PMMA display cover 102 as shown in Figure 2 must necessarily be transmissive to visible light because it is disposed over a touchscreen sensor 204 and display panel 214. Thus, to the extent that the Appellant is correct that Figure 2 illustrates the further limitations recited in claim 2, the combination resulting from Kwong and Reid includes a similar structure or configuration. Cf. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[I]f ‘solder reflow temperature’ were defined to mean liquidus temperature, a preferred (and indeed only) embodiment in the specification would not fall within the scope of the patent claim.”). For these reasons, we also sustain the rejection maintained against claim 2. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6–8, 10, 26, 33–35, 37, 38 103 Kwong, Reid 1, 2, 6–8, 10, 26, 33– 35, 37, 38 3, 9 103 Kwong, Reid, Takahashi 3, 9 4 103 Kwong, Reid, Faris 4 Appeal 2019-000809 Application 14/142,485 13 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 5 103 Kwong, Reid, Betensky 5 28 103 Kwong, Reid, McEldowney 28 Overall Outcome 1–10, 26, 28, 33–35, 37, 38 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED