Ex Parte Choi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 20, 201410675635 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/675,635 09/30/2003 Jae-Goo Choi 1235-006 6064 66547 7590 02/21/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER ALAM, FAYYAZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAE-GOO CHOI and YOUNG CHOI ____________________ Appeal 2011-0100241 Application 10/675,635 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2011-010024 Application 10/675,635 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-8. (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We reverse. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a keypad assembly (150) for a mobile phone (100), wherein the keypad can be used in a touch screen mode or in a key button function mode by activating a mode shift button (170) on the keypad. (Spec. [0014], Fig. 1). In particular, the keypad assembly (150) includes a circuit board (151) having disposed thereupon a keypad rubber (154), a sensor (153) disposed atop the keypad rubber, and a key button part (156) disposed atop the sensor. (Spec. [0013], Fig. 2). The key button part includes a plurality of key buttons that are positioned thereon such that the top planar surfaces of adjacent keys form a single planar touch screen panel with no spaces therebetween. (Spec. [0029], Fig. 1). Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A keypad assembly for a portable radiotelephone, comprising: a printed circuit board having a plurality of metal domes; a keypad rubber disposed on the printed circuit board and having bosses formed integrally on the positions corresponding to the plurality of metal domes; a sensing means disposed on the keypad rubber; Appeal 2011-010024 Application 10/675,635 3 a key button part disposed on the sensing means, the key button part integrating a keypad and a touch screen panel by having a plurality of key buttons being integrally formed with each other and being positioned such that top planar surfaces of the plurality of key buttons form a single, substantially planar touch screen panel with no spacing in between the top planar surfaces of adjacent keys among the plurality of key buttons, for functioning in one of a keypad mode and a touch screen panel mode; a power supply unit supplying power to the keypad and cutting off power to the touch screen panel in the keypad mode; and an input mode shift key shifting from one of the keypad mode and the touch screen panel mode to the other mode. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Miyajima US 6,518,958 B1 Feb. 11, 2003 Bick GB 2,367,530 Oct. 3, 2000 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bick and Miyajima. ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bick and Miyajima teaches or suggests a key button part including a plurality of key buttons positioned on a keypad such that the top Appeal 2011-010024 Application 10/675,635 4 planar surfaces of adjacent keys form a single planar touch screen panel with no spaces therebetween, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the combination of Bick and Miyajima does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 8-13, Reply Br. 1-5). In particular, Appellants argue because Miyajima discloses a key button part having a plurality of key buttons spaced apart, the buttons are not positioned on the keypad such that the top portions thereof form a substantially planar touch screen panel with no spacing between the top planar surfaces of adjacent keys. (App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 2-3). In response, the Examiner finds because Miyajima discloses a key part including a single planar surface having key buttons attached to one another through a single and same rubber material, Miyajima therefore teaches no physical gap between the top portions of adjacent key buttons. (Ans. 13, 15). On the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. We note, at the outset, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Miyajima discloses a single rubber layer upon which a plurality of key buttons are mounted to thereby form a single surface. However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that because the key buttons are linked together by the same rubber material, no physical gaps exists between the top planar surfaces thereof despite the explicit indication that such surfaces are spaced apart. Therefore, the pivotal issue before us turns on whether Miyajima’s disclosure of a plurality of key buttons mounted on a Appeal 2011-010024 Application 10/675,635 5 same rubber material teaches or suggests that top surfaces of adjacent buttons mounted on the rubber material have no spacing between them. We answer this inquiry in the negative. As set forth above, the disputed claim limitations require that the key buttons be positioned on the keypad such that the top planar surfaces thereof form a single planar touch screen panel with no spacing between the top planar surfaces of adjacent key buttons. That is, while the buttons are to be mounted on a same surface, they must also be positioned on the surface such that planar top portions of adjacent keys have no gap between them. Thus, while Miyajima’s disclosure of a plurality of key buttons mounted on a same rubber material teaches that the buttons linked together form a single surface for the keypad, its disclosure that the top portions of the key buttons are spaced apart (Fig. 2) vitiates the disputed claim language. Consequently, Miyajima’s disclosure simply falls short of teaching or suggesting positioning the buttons on the keypad such that no spacing exists between their top surfaces of adjacent key buttons. Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ remaining arguments. Therefore, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2- 8, because those claims recite commensurate limitations as in those of claim 1 discussed above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the rejection of those claims for the foregoing reasons. DECISION Appeal 2011-010024 Application 10/675,635 6 We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-8. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation