Ex Parte Freund

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

12524995 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/524,995 0712912009
57299 7590 12/16/2015
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Michael Freund
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.
Freund 99 4187
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, MD SAIFUL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2015 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):
kathy.manke@avagotech.com
patent. info@avagotech.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH MICHAEL FREUND
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
ADAM PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1-10, 12-23, and 26-28, which are the only claims currently
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
The invention is for a handheld device with a plurality of display
units. Abstract. Claim 7, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
7. A handheld device, comprising:
a plurality of display units forming a first portion of the device;
and
at least one processor coupled to the plurality of display units,
the at least one processor being configured to generate output at least
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
a portion of which is displayed on at least one of the plurality of
display units;
wherein the device is operative in at least a first configuration
and a second configuration, at least one display unit having a display
screen that is concealed in the first configuration and at least two of
the plurality of display units having respective display screens that are
at least partially visible from a same external viewing location in the
second configuration;
wherein at least a first display unit of the plurality of display
units is connected to at least a second display unit of the plurality of
display units by a hinge, which is coupled to and supports a second
portion of the device, the hinge comprising:
a central section, which is coupled to and supports the
first display unit; and
at least one extendable section, which is coupled to and
supports the at least second display unit;
thereby permitting the at least second display unit to
independently extend and retract one of in front of and behind
the first display unit.
REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 17 and 19--20 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 (b) as being anticipated by Stewart (US 2005/0253775). Final Act. 3---6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-10, 12-13 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reyes et al. (US 2004/0204126)
(hereinafter Reyes) and Kim (US 2006/0012951). Final Act. 6-15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 15-16, 21-22 and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart and Nguyen et al. (US
2007 /046330) (herein after Nguyen). Final Act. 15-19.
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart and Reyes. Final Act. 19-20.
The Examiner has rejected claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Reyes, Kim, and Stewart. Final Act. 20-22.
2
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejections are in error. App. Br.
5-19. The dispositive issues presented by these arguments are:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Stewart discloses at least a first
display unit of the plurality of display units being connected to
at least a second display unit of the plurality of display units by
a hinge, which is coupled to and supports the second portion of
the handheld device, as recited in independent claim 14?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Reyes and
Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "a first
display unit of the plurality of display units connected to at least
a second display unit of the plurality of display units by a hinge,
which is coupled to and supports a second portion of the device,
the hinge comprising ... at least one extendable section, which
is coupled to and supports the at least second display unit" as
recited in claim 7?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Reyes and
Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "the at least
one input device and plurality of display units are physically
distinct from one another," as recited in dependent claim 4?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Reyes, Kim,
and Stewart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "the
at least one extendable section comprises a first extendable
section which is coupled to and supports the second display unit
and a second extendable section which is coupled to and
supports a third display unit," as recited in dependent claim 26?
3
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
5. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Reyes, Kim,
and Stewart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "the
second display unit is permitted to extend and retract behind the
first display unit and wherein the third display unit is permitted
to extend and retract in front of the first display unit," as recited
in dependent claim 27?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim 14
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that
Stewart discloses at least a first display unit of the plurality of display units
being connected to at least a second display unit of the plurality of display
units by a hinge, which is coupled to and supports the second portion of the
handheld device. The Examiner finds that "the swivel hinge 40 and its
extended part 32 connect first display 50 and second portion of the portable
computer ... " Ans. 5 (citing Stewart Fig. 2). As Appellant points out,
however, the vertical member 32 of Stewart is merely a support member.
App. Br. 6, 7, (citing Stewart i-f 52, 54). We disagree with the Examiner's
finding that swivel hinge 40 includes part 32 as part of the hinge. Ans. 5.
For example, as shown in Figure 1 of Stewart, part 32 is separate from hinge
40. Moreover, the Examiner cites no portion of Stewart that explains that
part 32 is part of hinge 40. See Ans. 5, 6, 15-19. Therefore, we are
persuaded by Appellant's argument that the vertical member 3 2 in Stewart
does not permit the first display 30 to independently extend and retract one
of in front of and behind the second display 50, and accordingly, the
Examiner has not shown how Stewart discloses a hinge comprising at least
4
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
one extendable section, which is coupled to and supports the at least second
display unit, as required by claim 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14.
The Examiner relies on Stewart to teach the elements of independent
claim 14 in the rejection of each of dependent claims 15-22 and 28. See
Ans. Accordingly, because we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of independent claim 14, upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection of
each associated dependent claim, we also reverse the rejection of each
associated dependent claim 15-22 and 28.
2. Claim 7
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Reyes and Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "a first display
unit of the plurality of display units connected to at least a second display
unit of the plurality of display units by a hinge, which is coupled to and
supports a second portion of the device, the hinge comprising ... at least one
extendable section, which is coupled to and supports the at least second
display unit," as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 9-12. In particular, Appellant
argues that pins 347a and 347b of Kim are not extendable and that instead,
pins 34 7 a and 34 7b merely allow housing 344 to rotate about an axis A
passing through pins 347a and 347b. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
both Kim's 347 and 348 as single hinge unit, and that hinge 348 has the
extendable pins 347a and 347b, which support the second display unit 344 as
shown in Figure 4F of Kim. See Ans. 10; Final Act. 9-10. Appellant
provides insufficient evidence to persuade us that the Specification or claims
limit "extendable section" in a way that, under a broad but reasonable
5
Appeal2013-005669
Application I2/524,995
interpretation, is not encompassed by Kim's teachings of pins 347a and 347b
along with Reye's extendable display units. See Ans. 9, IO (citing Reyes
Figs. IC-ID). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 7, claims I-3, 5-IO, I2, and 23 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3. Claim 4
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Reyes and Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of dependent
claim 4. App. Br. I2, I3. Although Appellant argues that the input device
IO and display I I of Reyes are "part of the same main body I," we find this
argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 4, which merely recites,
"the at least one input device and plurality of display units are physically
distinct from one another" (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that "display units I I, I4, I5
and input device (keypad with other control button) are clearly and
physically distinguishable from one another. One of ordinary skill in the art
will easily identify three display units and input device physically." Ans. I 3.
Appellant provides insufficient evidence to persuade us that the
Specification or claims limit "physically distinct" in a way that, under a
broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Reyes' s
teachings of display units and input devices. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4.
6
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
4. Claim 26
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Reyes, Kim, and Stewart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "the
at least one extendable section comprises a first extendable section which is
coupled to and supports the second display unit and a second extendable
section which is coupled to and supports a third display unit," as recited in
dependent claim 26. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that:
As seen from the figure [8c of Stewart] there are three display
units 30, 50 and 60 are connected to an input device 20. Two
display units 50 and 60 are extendable from the main display
unit 30. The bottom bar of each of the display unit is
functioning as extendable portion along with the display unit.
Therefore, the main support connected to the base (laptop 20) is
interpreted as central portion of the hinge unit and bottom bars
of the display unit as extendable portion of the hinge unit which
support two additional display units.
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate Stewart's teaching in the Reyes
teaching in order to provide a multi -screen laptop system that
allows a user to operate multiple programs without sacrificing
viewing quality.
Ans. 19-20. Although Appellant argues that Stewart's first, second, and
third displays are connected by the housing of the first display rather than
via extendable sections of a hinge (Reply By. 8), we find that Appellant
provides insufficient evidence showing that the Specification or claims limit
"hinge" in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not
encompassed by Stewart's teachings of extendable portions along with
Kim's teachings of a hinge.
7
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. In essence,
Appellant's arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and
are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 26.
5. Claim 27
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Reyes, Kim, and Stewart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of "the
second display unit is permitted to extend and retract behind the first display
unit and wherein the third display unit is permitted to extend and retract in
front of the first display unit," as recited in dependent claim 27. App. Br.
17-18; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner finds that "Reyes as modified by Kim
and Stewart teaches a handheld device as applied to claim 26, wherein the
second display unit is permitted to extend and retract behind the first display
unit (fig. ID, Reyes) and wherein the third display unit is permitted to
extend (fig. 8c, Stewart) and retract (Para-53, Stewart) in front of the first
display unit." Final Act. 22.
Appellant argues that "Reyes and Stewart, however, disclose
arrangements wherein second and third display units are behind a first
8
Appeal2013-005669
Application 12/524,995
display." App. Br. 17. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. In
essence, Appellant's arguments do not take into account what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 27.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10, 12, 13, 23, 26,
and 27 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14--22 and 28 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
sl
9