Ex Parte Sellers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2016

13128635 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/128,635 05/10/2011
22879 7590 07/28/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles A. Sellers
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82731821 2250
EXAMINER
TERRELL, EMILY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES A. SELLERS
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 115. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant indicates that Charles A. Sellers is the real party in interest.
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
The claims are directed to a keyboard illumination apparatus and
method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A user interface apparatus comprising:
a keyboard comprising one or more keys; wherein each of
the one or more keys comprise a key base and a key top;
a light guide comprising an edge, a first surface and a
second surface; the first surface disposed about the key base of
all or a portion of the one or more keys; the light guide having
one or more apertures disposed therethrough, wherein each of the
one or more apertures corresponds to one or more keys; an
interior surface of all or a portion of the one or more apertures
having one or more dispersion features disposed proximate
thereto, the one or more dispersion features to transmit at least a
portion of the light from the light guide to the base of all or a
portion of the one or more keys proximate the one or more
apertures by refracting light incident on the dispersion feature;
one or more stiffeners extending partially or completely
beneath all or a portion of the one or more keys.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiang et al.
Shipman et al.
Liu et al.
US 6,860,612 B2
US 7,172,303 B2
US 2009/0121904 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 1, 2005
Feb. 6,2007
May 14, 2009
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Shipman.
2
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
Claim 1 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chiang.
Claim 6 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shipman in view of Chiang.
ANALYSIS
Shipman
Appellant addresses independent claims 1, 11, and 13 together. (App.
Br. 6). Because independent claims 11 and 13 contain similar limitations to
independent claim 1, we address independent claim 1 as the illustrative
claim. In response to Appellant's argument in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-
9) regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner maintains:
The Examiner kindly notes that not only have the Hollow
Projections 39 been cited, but the Key Shafts 29, Bores, 41, and
Holes 50 coupled together perform the functionality of the
present dispersion feature refracting light incident on the feature
as cited in originally cited Column 9 line 1 - Column 10 line 20,
and sections which have been provided below for convenience
As evident from the above response cited from the Final
Office Action of May 9, 2014, Shipman teaches the aspects of
the dispersion feature; therefore, the Examiner respectfully
maintains the rejection.
Additionally, in response to Appellant's assertion that the
arrows indicate light as traveling straight through the key shaft
29 with no refraction whatsoever, as evident in Figure 6 cited
above, the arrows are deflected from a straight path undergone
by a light ray or energy wave in passing obliquely from one
medium (as air) into another (as glass) in which its velocity is
different (Merriam Webster Dictionary Definition accessed
August 25, 2014). Shipman teaches the aspects of the dispersion
3
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
feature; therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains the
rejection.
(Ans. 11-12).
Appellant contends that:
As noted in Appellant's primary brief, contrary to the Examiner's
assertion, Figure 6 of Shipman fails to provide any indication of
refraction of light incident on any feature. Further, the arrows in
Figure 6 of Shipman indicate light traveling straight through
surface of the key shaft 29 with no refraction at the surface. In
the Examiner's Answer to Appellant's primary and brief, the
Examiner argues that "the arrows are deflected from a straight
path undergone by a light ray or energy wave in passing
obliquely from one medium (as air) into another (as glass) .... "
Figure 6 of Shipman illustrates light (such as indicated by
arrow 53) striking the surface 29 of the key shaft, traveling
straight through into the hollow interior, and then turning
upward. There is no teaching in either Figure 6 of Shipman or in
the associated description of any refraction at the surface of the
key shaft.
(Reply Br. 1-2).
Appellant further contends
Shipman fails to provide any such disclosure that would support
refraction of light. To the contrary, Figure 6 of Shipman
illustrates that the surface 29 of the key shaft upon which the light
is incident is a vertical surface, apparently perpendicular to the
direction of travel of light. It is impossible for light striking a
perpendicular surface to be refracted upward as indicated by the
arrows. Thus, the Examiner's interpretation of the disclosure of
Shipman is without any support.
(Reply Br. 2).
We agree with Appellant the Examiner's correlation of the disclosure of the
Shipman reference is unreasonable in light of the specific claim language.
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that Figure 6 of the Shipman reference
4
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
illustrates light turning perpendicular in the middle of the hollow interior of
the key shaft, and we further agree with Appellant that the Shipman
reference contains no express disclosure of light refracted at the surface of a
dispersion feature (claim 1 reciting "the one or more dispersion features to
transmit at least a portion of the light from the light guide to the base of all
or a portion of the one or more keys proximate the one or more apertures by
refracting light incident on the dispersion feature"). While the Examiner
attempts to broaden the interpretation of the claimed "dispersion feature" in
the Examiner's Answer, as "Hollow Projections 39 [have] been cited, but the
Key Shafts 29, Bores, 41, and Holes 50 coupled together perform the
functionality of the present dispersion feature refracting light incident on the
feature," (Ans. 11 ), the Examiner has not explained how the proffered
multiple element interpretation refracts light incident on the multiple
element "dispersion feature."
Because the Examiner paints with a broad brush in making the
anticipation rejection, we are left to speculate as to the precise details of how
each argued claim limitation is expressly or inherently described by the
portion of the Shipman reference relied on by the Examiner. We note that
the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial examination.
Moreover, it is our view that the more rigorous requirements of§ 102
essentially require a one-for-one mapping of each argued limitation to the
corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner must identify
with particularity.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 based upon
the Shipman reference. We similarly cannot sustain the anticipation
5
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
rejection of independent claims 11and13 and dependent claims 12, 14, and
15 for the same reasons.
Chiang
In response to Appellant's argument in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-
10) regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner maintains "not only have
the reflective Portions 231 [] a been cited, but the Light Guide 231 as well,
which together perform the functionality of the present dispersion feature
refracting light incident on the feature as cited in originally cited Column 3
lines 47---65, and Figures 2-5 descriptions." (Ans. 12-13). The Examiner
further maintains:
in response to Appellant's assertion that the entirely of
Chiang fails to provide any mention of refraction and instead
highlights reflection, the light from the source is deflected from
a straight path undergone by a light ray or energy wave in passing
obliquely from one medium (as air) into another (as glass) in
which its velocity is different (Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition accessed August 25, 2014) as the light is deflected
into the light guide from the source. Chiang teaches the aspects
of the dispersion feature; therefore, the Examiner respectfully
maintains the rejection.
(Ans. 13).
Appellant further reiterates that the Chiang reference discloses
reflection rather than "one or more dispersion features to transmit at least a
portion of the light from the light guide to the base" as recited in the
language of independent claim 1. (Reply Br. 2). We agree with Appellant
and, we cannot sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claim 1 based upon the Chiang reference.
6
Appeal2015-001946
Application 13/128,635
Shipman and Chiang
With respect to dependent claim 6, Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11 ).
Because the Examiner has not identified how the Chiang reference remedies
the noted deficiency in the Shipman reference (Ans. 9-10), we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-15 based upon
anticipation, and the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-15.
REVERSED
7