Ex Parte Nguyen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 12, 201310159517 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HUY NGUYEN and TOLA CHIN ____________________ Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4–18, and 21–26.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to a handheld computer having a housing configuration that orients a surface feature (Spec., p. 1, ll. 6–8). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A mobile device comprising: a housing having a front face and a back face, a length of the front face and a length of the back face each extending primarily in a first direction corresponding to a length of the housing, a width of the front face and a width of the back face each extending primarily in a second direction corresponding to a width of the housing; at least a first surface of the housing being substantially planar and extending between the front face and the back face 1 We note that neither the Examiner’s Answer nor the Final Office Action from which the appeal is taken expresses a specific ground for rejection of claim 26. While the Appeal Brief also omits claim 26 in identifying the claims that “are the subject of the present appeal” (Br. 3), both the Appeal Brief (see, e.g. Br. 11) and Examiner’s Answer (see, e.g., Ans. 11) address the claim in the argumentative portions; both Appellants and the Examiner thereby implicitly acknowledge that claim 26 stands rejected. We conclude that the omission of a specific ground for rejection of claim 26 is a result of inadvertent error by the Examiner. Since Appellants have not presented any separate argument for patentability of claim 26, any such argument is deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 3 to form a top edge, the first surface being acutely angled with respect to at least one of the front face and the back face; wherein the housing is structured to be unitary, so that the front face, the back face, and the first surface are fixed relative to one another and so that the length of the housing is constant; a component for use in capturing an image of a scene, the component being disposed at least partially on the first surface and being operationally affected by a direction in which the component is oriented; a contact-sensitive display provided on the front face; a plurality of input mechanisms provided on the front face, the plurality of input mechanisms including the display; a processor contained with the housing for displaying the image on the display; wherein at least one of the plurality of input mechanisms is operable to enable a user to select the image or other content from the display; and wherein the housing is structured to enable an orientation that, relative to a reference Y that is defined by a direction of gravity and a reference X that is orthogonal to Y, enables an angle in which the display is viewed by a user to be acute with respect to Y, and a direction in which the component is directed to be substantially along X and directed outward away from the user. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Suzuki US D435,837 Jan. 2, 2001 Suso US 6,466,202 Oct. 15, 2002 Horiki US 2002/0140667 A12 Oct. 3, 2002 2 The Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3) cites an incorrect publication number for Horiki. This is harmless error. Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 4 Rejections Claims 1, 4–18, and 21–263 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Horiki, Suzuki, and Suso (Ans. 4–9). Issue Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Horiki, Suzuki, and Suso teach a housing is structured to be unitary as recited in claim 1.4 ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the housing of the mobile devices taught by each of Horiki, Suzuki, and Suso is nonunitary (Br. 7, 8, 9). We find this contention unpersuasive. Horiki discloses a number of structures for a “portable communications terminal,” exemplified by a portable telephone (Horiki ¶2). Appellants reproduce Figs. 1(a)–1(c) and 3(a)–3(c) of Horiki in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7) and direct their arguments to those embodiments of Horiki. But as the Examiner correctly finds (Ans. 4), the embodiments shown in Figs. 16(a) and 16(b) of Horiki illustrate a device having a unitary housing: “The 3 See n. 1 supra. 4 Appellants assert that dependent claims 4–8, 21, 23, 25, and 26 are patentable “for at least the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 1,” that independent claim 9 is patentable “for at least the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 1,” and that dependent claims 10–18, 22, and 24 are patentable “for at least the same reasons as those given with respect to Claim 9” (Br. 11–12). We therefore treat claim 1 as representative of all claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 5 example of FIG. 16(a) shows a portable telephone 1600 that does not have a folding part” (Horiki, ¶150). The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 relies on a combination of teachings drawn from (1) Horiki’s disclosure of an embodiment with a unitary housing structure and (2) teachings drawn from Suzuki, Suso, and other embodiments of Horiki having nonunitary housing structures (Ans. 4– 7). In light of the evidence provided by Horiki’s disclosure of unitary and nonunitary housing structures as alternatives (see Ans. 4–5), we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in making such a combination. We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 4–18 and 21–26, for which Appellants rely on the same argument. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4–18, and 21–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Horiki, Suzuki, and Suso. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–18, and 21–26 is affirmed. 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 Appeal 2011-003225 Application 10/159,517 6 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation