Ex Parte Grimme et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14613481 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/613,481 02/04/2015 Jason Grimme
124906 7590 01/03/2019
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
225 S. Meramec, Suite 725
St. Louis, MO 63105
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.
RPS920140225-US-NP
(18-10
CONFIRMATION NO.
2229
EXAMINER
BURTNER, DOUGLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
docket@splglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON GRIMME, RUSSELL SPEIGHT V ANBLON,
and SPENCER MICHAEL GUY
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-8, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 of
Application 14/613,481 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and/or 112. Final Act.
(Nov. 28, 2016) 3-7. Appellant 1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte., Ltd., which is
also identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a support system for a
mobile computing device. Spec. ,r 1. The support system includes an input
support stand and a main housing. Id. The application describes an
embodiment of the support system as follows:
[ t ]he input support stand is movably secured to the main housing
and movable between a retracted position in which the input
interface support stand is securely retracted in relation to the
main housing, and a supporting position in which the input
interface support stand supports the main housing in a supported
operative orientation.
Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a main housing including one or more processors and a
display screen; and
an input interface support stand including an input
interface integrally connected to a stabilizer, the input interface
removably connected to the stabilizer, the input support stand
movably secured to the main housing and movable between a
retracted position in which the input interface support stand is
securely retracted in relation to the main housing, and a
supporting position in which the input interface support stand
supports the main housing in a supported operative orientation.
10. A system comprising:
a main housing including one or more processors and a
display screen; and
a support stand having an input interface integrally
connected to a stabilizer, the support stand removably
connected to the stabilizer, the support stand movably secured
to the main housing and movable between a retracted position
2
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
in which the support stand is securely retracted in relation to the
main housing, and a supporting position in which the support
stand supports the main housing in a supported operative
orientation;
wherein the support stand is positioned to a first side of a
plane in which the display screen resides in the supporting
position, and wherein the stabilizer is positioned to a second
side of the plane in the supporting position, and wherein the
first side is opposite from the second side.
Appeal Br. 21, 22 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 3.
2. Claims 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for
failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter of the invention. Id. at 3.
3. Claims 1-8, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Yu2 in view ofFrinak et al. 3 Id. at 4--7.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 12-15 for failure
to comply with the written description requirement. Id. at 3. The Examiner
determined that the limitation "the support stand removably connected to the
stabilizer," found in claim 10, is not supported by the Specification as filed.
Id.
2 US 2014/0118917 Al, published May 1, 2014 ("Yu").
3 US 2014/0071607 Al, published Mar. 13, 2014 ("Frinak").
3
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Appellant argues that the limitation in question is supported by both
the Specification and the figures. Appellant cites to the Specification's
teachings as follows:
As shown, the interface support stand 302 may include a
stabilizer support 304 and an input interface 306. The input
interface 306 may be detachable from the stabilizer support 304.
For example, the input interface 306 may include a plug end 308
that is configured to be removably connected to a receptacle end
310 of the stabilizer support 304 .... [T]he input interface 306
may be removed from the stabilizer support 310 so that an
individual may use the input interface 306 at a remote location ..
. . Any of the embodiments of the present application may
include an input interface support stand having a separable input
interface.
Spec. ,r 56; Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further cites to Figure 12 of the
application, reproduced below.
4
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Figure 12 shows "a perspective front view of a mobile computing device
supported in an upright orientation by an input interface support stand,
according to an embodiment of the present disclosure." Spec. ,r 25.
Appellant argues that the Specification's teaching of an input interface
306 that may be removed from the stabilizer support 304 describes claim
10' s requirement that "the support stand [be] removably connected to the
stabilizer." This is in error.
The cited passage and figure teach that the "support stand" 302
comprises "stabilizer support" 304 and "input interface" 306 as constituent
components. This differs from the limitation in question which requires that
the support stand may be removed from the stabilizer support 304. That is,
the claim purports to require that the support stand be removed from itself.
See Answer 3. This is not described in the Specification.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's
rejection predicated upon failure to comply with the written description
requirement.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 12-15 as
indefinite. Final Act. 3. The Examiner determined that the same limitation
discussed above, "the support stand removably connected to the stabilizer,"
is indefinite. Specifically, the Examiner determined that "[t]he claim recites
that the support stand is removably connected to the stabilizer while the
disclosure shows that a portion of the support stand is removably connected
to the stabilizer." Id. ( emphasis added). The Examiner further offers that
"applicants may have intended for claim 10 to have the input interface
removably connected to the stabilizer rather than the support stand
removably connected to the stabilizer." Id. ( emphasis added).
5
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Appellant again cites to Paragraph 56 of the Specification and Figure
12 of the application (both reproduced above) in support of its argument that
"the present application clearly describes an interface support stand that
removably connects to a stabilizer." Appeal Br. 12. This is not persuasive.
As discussed with regard to the written description rejection, the
Specification and figures teach an input interface 306 (such as a keyboard)
that may be removed from a stabilizer 304. Similarly, claim 1 requires "an
input interface support stand [302] including an input interface [306]
integrally connected to a stabilizer [304], the input interface [306]
removably connected to the stabilizer." Id. at 21 (Claims App.). That is,
claim 1, consistent with the Specification and Figure 12, indicates that the
input interface and stabilizer together make up the support stand. See
Appeal Br. 14 ("the input interface support stand includes both the input
interface and the stabilizer."). Claim 10, however, requires a "support
stand" that may be removed from one of its components ( the stabilizer),
thus, removed from itself. This creates ambiguity at least as to the
construction of "support stand." See Answer 4.
During prosecution, a claim is examined for compliance with 35
U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2 by determining whether the claim meets threshold
requirements of clarity and precision. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1268
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting MPEP § 2173.02). A claim should be rejected as
indefinite when it is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions.
Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1207, 1211 (B.P.A.I.2008); In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("There are good reasons
why unnecessary incoherence and ambiguity in claim constructions should
be disapproved").
6
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Here, claim 10 and its dependents fail to meet threshold requirements
of clarity and precision. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to show
reversible error in the rejection based on indefiniteness.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10, 12-19, and 21-
23 as obvious over Yu in view ofFrinak. Final Act. 4--7.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner determined that Yu teaches
the main housing and an input interface support stand as required by claim 1.
Figure 5 of the Specification and Figure 6 of Yu are reproduced below.
Figure 5 of the Specification (left) and Figure 6 of Yu (right) each illustrate
a front view of a portable computer supported in an upright orientation.
Spec. ,r 18; Yu ,r,r 9, 11, and 23-24.
The Examiner further relies upon Frinak as teaching a removable
input interface (keyboard). Figure 5 of Frinak is reproduced below.
7
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Figure 5 of Frinak depicts "a case supporting a PED [portable electronic
device] in an elevated position with the keyboard removed." Frinak ,r 7.
Appellant argues that the rejection is in error on several bases. First,
Appellant argues that the proposed combination does not describe, teach, or
suggest "an input interface support stand including an input interface
integrally connected to a stabilizer, the input interface removably connected
to the stabilizer" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 14--16. Specifically,
Appellant argues that Frinak does not teach an input interface support stand
that includes both an input interface and a stabilizer. Id. at 14. Rather,
Appellant argues, Frinak teaches an input interface (keyboard) separate and
distinct from the stabilizer. Id. at 14--16.
In this regard, the Examiner explains as follows:
Frinak is only relied upon for the teaching of an input interface
removably connected to a stabilizer. Clearly figure 5 of Frinak
teaches an input interface (104) removably connected to a
stabilizer, regardless of whether the stabilizer is taken as
element 108 or 110. The rejection does not require that the base
108 is removable from the support panel 110 or the retention
panel 112 since the keyboard is analogous to an input interface.
8
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
Answer 4. We adopt the Examiner's analysis. Additionally, we note that
the Examiner determined that Yu teaches "an input interface support
stand (20) including an input interface (21) integrally connected to a
stabilizer (back part of 20, see fig 6)." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). It
appears to be undisputed that Yu teaches a support stand with an integral
stabilizer and Frinak teaches a removable input interface.
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with
regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 16.
For its second argument, Appellant asserts that claims 21 and 23 were
rejected in error. Appeal Br. 16-17. Claims 21 and 23 each require that
"the input interface includes a plug end that is removably connected to a
receptacle end of the stabilizer." Id. at 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner
relies upon Frinak as teaching such limitation. Final Act. 7. More
specifically, the Examiner found that the portion of Frinak's keyboard that is
inserted into the guide rails is a "plug end" and the "receptacle end of the
stabilizer" is the portion bearing one or more guide rails. Id. (citing Frinak
Appellant argues that "the keyboard 104 [ of Frinak] slides over the
base 108, and does not include an end that plugs into a reciprocal end of the
support panel 110, or even the base 108." Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis
omitted). This argument is not directly responsive to the Examiner's
determination. Accordingly, it is not persuasive of reversible error. We
further adopt the reasoning of the Examiner in this regard as set forth in the
Final Office Action (Final Act. 7) and the Answer (Answer 5).
For its third argument, Appellant asserts that claim 10 was rejected in
error. Id. at 17-19. Claim 10 requires "a support stand having an input
interface integrally connected to a stabilizer, the support stand removably
9
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
connected to the stabilizer." The Examiner determined, and we affirmed,
supra, that such limitation is not supported by an adequate written
description and is indefinite.
For the purposes of evaluating the present argument, we construe the
term "support stand" to mean an input interface integrally connected to a
removable stabilizer.
Accordingly, Appellant's argument is the same with regard to claim
10 as with regard to claim 1. As we have not found such argument to be
persuasive with regard to claim 1, we determine that Appellant has not
shown reversible error with regard to the rejection of claim 10. We
additionally adopt the analysis of the Examiner in this regard. See Final Act.
5; Answer 5---6.
For its fourth argument, Appellant asserts that claim 22 was rejected
in error. Appeal Br. 19--20. Claim 22 depends from claim 10 and further
requires that "the support stand includes a plug end removably connected to
a receptacle end of the stabilizer." Id. at 22 (Claims App.). The support
stand of claim 10 includes "an input interface." Id. at 22. Thus, the scope of
claim 22 is similar to that of claims 21 and 23, discussed above. As with
claims 21 and 23, the Examiner determines that the portion of Frinak' s
keyboard that is inserted into the guide rails is the "plug end" and the
"receptacle end of the stabilizer" is the portion bearing one or more guide
rails. Final Act. 7 ( citing Frinak ,r 15).
Appellant does not directly address such findings. Accordingly,
Appellant has not shown error in this regard.
10
Appeal2017-010938
Application 14/613,481
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 10 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite is
affirmed. The rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12-19, and 21-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yu in view ofFrinak 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).
AFFIRMED
11