11936398 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

Ex Parte Glassman

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 2013

11936398 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ELLEN GLASSMAN ____________ Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, WILLIAM A. CAPP and BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 - 2 - THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is a mounting bracket for a video display device. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system, comprising: a display device; an attachment device directly attached to an exterior of a backside surface of the display device; and a component connected to the attachment device, wherein the component is moveable between a first position relative to the backside surface of the display device and a second position relative to the backside surface of the display device about an axis that is defined by the attachment device at a location that is directly adjacent to the backside surface of the display device no higher than a top surface of the display device and wherein the first position is used to attach the component directly flush to an underside surface to thereby position the display device in a vertical, hanging viewing position entirely below the underside surface in which the top surface of the display device is positioned below the underside surface generally coplanar with the component when the component is attached directly flush to the underside surface and the second position cooperates with the display device and a topside surface to thereby position the display device in a standing, viewing position. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Kruger Schutz Patterson Blair US 1,219,959 US 1,904,088 US 2,388,567 US 5,235,495 Mar. 20, 1917 Apr. 18, 1933 Nov. 6, 1945 Aug. 10, 1993 Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 - 3 - The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Patterson and Blair. 2. Claims 4, 5 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patterson, Blair and Schutz. 3. Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patterson, Blair, Schutz and Kruger. OPINION Unpatentability of Claims 1-3, 6-8 Appellant argues claims 1-3 and 6-8 as a group. App. Br. 4-7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner finds that Patterson discloses all of the elements of claim 1 except for the use of a video display device. Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Blair as disclosing a video display used with a rotatable prop or handle. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the attachment device and component of Patterson with a video display as in Blair. Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this because it merely involves using known devices in accordance with their known functions. Id. Appellant traverses the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that Patterson’s loop antenna 4 is not attachable to an underside surface to position a video display in a vertical, hanging position. App. Br. 6, Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant argues that Patterson’s loop antenna is a directional antenna that must be pointed at a signal source to allow the radio to operate. Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 - 4 - Id. Thus, according to Appellant, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Patterson is unsuitable for attachment to a surface. Id. In response, the Examiner states that Patterson specifically discloses that the loop antenna can be used as a suspension support. Ans. 6, citing Patterson at col. 1, ll. 40-45; col 3, ll. 12-28. The Examiner further responds that Patterson’s specification does not support Appellant’s contention that Patterson’s antenna must be pointed at a signal source. Ans. 6-7. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Patterson’s antenna 4 cannot be attached to the underside of a surface. A review of Patterson shows that the antenna rotates from an easel support position to a vertical hanging position, a range of motion that encompasses extension in a direction ninety degrees relative to the backside of Patterson’s radio. See Patterson, Fig. 1-3. Moreover, the antenna is intended to function as a structural support for the radio. When the antenna structure is disposed in the position illustrated in Fig, 3, it is adapted to serve as a carrying handle or as a suspension support, by means of which the receiver may be hung on a fixed object. Patterson, col. 3, ll. 20-25. The antenna otherwise appears to be fully capable of attachment directly flush to an underside surface. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellant’s argument that Patterson discloses a directional antenna does not undercut the soundness of the Examiner’s rejection. “A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007). Patterson’s antenna 4 is not only an antenna, it also functions as a support structure. We agree Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 - 5 - with the Examiner’s finding that Patterson’s component (antenna) could be attached to an underside surface thereby positioning the radio in a vertical hanging position. Ans. 4. Next, Appellant argues against the combination of Patterson and Blair. App. Br. 7. Appellant questions why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Blair’s computer with Patterson’s loop antenna. Id. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Patterson discloses a radio. The Examiner relies on Blair as disclosing a video display device. Ans. 4. Blair also discloses a rotatable prop or handle. See Blair Fig. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Using Patterson’s antenna/handle on a device with a video display instead of a radio is a simple substitution that is within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 4-5. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result). We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 8. Unpatentability of Claims 4, 5 and 13-18 Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of the claims that were subjected to the second ground of rejection. Appellant has waived the right to argue these claims and we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 13-18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appeal 2011-010880 Application 11/936,398 - 6 - Unpatentability of Claims 19-22 Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of the claims that were subjected to the third ground of rejection. Appellant has waived the right to argue these claims and we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 19-22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 13-22 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 tj