Ex Parte Larsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2015

11796265 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111796,265 04/27/2007
69316 7590 12/18/2015
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Glen C. Larsen
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.
319066.01 5512
EXAMINER
PARSONS, THOMAS H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1729
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2015 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):
stevensp@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN C. LARSEN
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265 1
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 17-19, 21-23, and
25-30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Microsoft
Corporation. Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to Appellant's Original Specification filed April 27,
2007, the Examiner Final Office Action (Final) mailed November 2, 2012,
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Br.) filed March 11, 2013, and the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) mailed June 11, 2013.
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to battery carriages that interface with batteries
in the correct polarization, regardless of the orientation in which the batteries
are inserted. Spec. if 3. Appellant's Figure 1, reproduced below, shows a
dual battery carriage 100 including dual-contact assemblies 121, 12 7 on the
ends of carriage substrate 115, and a double-sided dual-contact assembly
119 between the battery carriages 111, 113 including dual-contact
assemblies 123, 125. Each of the dual-contact assemblies includes both
positive contacts and negative contacts. End dual-contact assemblies 121,
127 include spring-loaded portions carrying battery-engaging surfaces of the
positive and negative contacts. Spec. iii! 14--16.
FIG.1
JJJ
~
115
113
;..-/
JZ7
(
Appellant's Figure 1, depicting a perspective view of a dual battery carriage
device.
2
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
The double-sided dual-contact assembly 119 may comprise one side
that includes a spring-loaded dual-contact assembly as shown in Appellant's
Figure 7, reproduced below.
FIG. 7
Appellant's Figure 7, depicted a perspective view of an alternative double-
sided dual-contact assembly.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to Appellant's
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A device comprising:
a positive circuit connection;
a negative circuit connection;
first and second battery carriages; and
a double sided dual-contact assembly between the first
and second battery carriages, the double sided dual-contact
assembly comprising:
a first side comprising a first dual-contact
assembly for the first battery carriage, the first dual-
contact assembly comprising a positive contact extending
from a substrate portion and electrically connected to the
3
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
positive circuit connection, and a negative contact
extending from a substrate portion and electrically
connected to the negative circuit connection; and
a second side comprising a second dual-contact
assembly for the second battery carriage, the second
dual-contact assembly configured to electrically interface
with a battery in either of first and second orientations
within the second battery carriage, the second dual-
contact assembly comprising:
a negative contact including:
a first portion extending from a
substrate portion, and
a second spring-loaded portion
coupled and resiliently movable with respect
to the first portion of the negative contact to
accommodate a battery, the second spring-
loaded portion of the negative contact
having a battery-engaging forwardly
disposed surface that is electrically
connected to the negative circuit connection;
and
a positive contact including:
a first portion extending from a
substrate portion, and a second spring-
loaded portion coupled and resiliently
movable with respect to the first portion of
the positive contact to accommodate a
battery, the second spring-loaded portion of
the positive contact having a battery-
engaging surface that is electrically
connected to the positive circuit connection
and is disposed recessed relative to the
forwardly disposed surface of the negative
contact.
The Rejections
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
4
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 17, 27, and 29 as unpatentable over
Nakamura3 in view of Engira, 4 and Suzuki; 5
B. Claim 18 as unpatentable over Nakamura, Engira, and Iida,
~ h . . fL" 6 7 iurt er m view o m; '
C. Claims 19, 21, 28, and 30 as unpatentable over Nakamura in
view of Engira and Iida; 8
D. Claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over Nakamura in
view of Engira and Dalton. 9
ANALYSIS
We address individual claims to the extent Appellant separately
argued them. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv)(2012), the remaining claims stand or fall with the claim from
which they depend.
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Nakamura discloses a device including first and
second battery carriages each housing a battery 13A, 13B, a double-sided
3 US 2005/0123825 Al, published June 9, 2005.
4 US 5,431,575, issued July 11, 1995.
5 US 5,631,098, issued May 20, 1997.
6 US 6,062,901, issued May 16, 2000.
7 In the statement of rejection for claim 18, which depends from claim 1, the
Examiner indicates that the rejection is based on a combination of
Nakamura, Engira, and Iida "as applied to claims 1 and 6 above." However,
claims 1 and 6 were previously rejected over the combination of Nakamura,
Engira, and Suzuki. As the Examiner appears to rely on Suzuki and Iida for
a teaching of the same spring-loaded contact feature and Appellant does not
separately argue claim 18, we hold this inconsistency to be harmless error.
8 US 5,827,619, issued October 27, 1998.
9 US 6,238,818 Bl, issued May 29, 2001.
5
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
assembly 23 between first and second battery carriages, and a single-sided
assembly between the first and second carriages. Final 2. Although the
Examiner notes that Nakamura does not show positive and negative circuit
connections, the Examiner nonetheless finds, without dispute, that
Nakamura's device must have such circuit connections as the batteries
would otherwise not function to provide power to the device. Id. The
Examiner concedes that Nakamura fails to disclose a double-sided dual-
contact assembly between the carriages having a first side comprising a first
dual-contact assembly with positive and negative contacts extending from a
substrate portion, and a second side comprising a second dual-contact
assembly with positive and negative contacts extending from a substrate
portion. Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner further finds Engira discloses a double-sided dual-
contact assembly between first and second battery carriages including a first
side comprising a first duai-contact assembiy with positive and negative
contacts extending from a substrate portion, and a second side comprising a
second dual-contact assembly with positive and negative contacts extending
from a substrate portion. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to have modified Nakamura's single-contact assemblies with
the dual-contact assemblies of Engira to eliminate the need for the user to
determine the proper direction for the insertion of any axial-type cell. Id. at
3--4.
However, the Examiner further acknowledges that this
Nakamura/Engira combination fails to disclose spring-loaded portions
coupled and resiliently movable with respect to first portions of the positive
and negative contacts, the second portions of the contacts having battery-
6
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
engaging surfaces. Id. at 4. In this regard, the Examiner turns to Suzuki,
finding this reference teaches a contact assembly comprising second spring-
loaded portions coupled and resiliently movable with respect to first portions
of the positive and negative contacts, the second portions having battery-
engaging surfaces. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to have modified the Nakamura/Engira combination's contact assembly with
spring-loaded portions of Suzuki to prevent the circuit from being destroyed
even when the batteries are inserted with reverse polarity. Id. at 5.
Appellant contends that the provision of a double sided dual-contact
assembly between first and second battery carriages with at least one of the
dual-contact sides including spring-loaded portions of the positive and
negative contacts would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of Engira and Suzuki. Br. 9--12. In particular, Appellant argues
that Engira fails to teach or suggest a contact assembly between battery
carriages, or provide motivation to modify Nakamura's doubie-sided
assembly. Id. at 9. Indeed, because Engira teaches that the contact plates
are attached to the carriage by leaf springs, the contact plates pivot
outwardly allowing outward longitudinal movement of the contact plates,
Appellant urges that Engira's contact plates could not accommodate
batteries on both sides thereof. Id. at 9--10.
The issue raised by Appellant's arguments is whether the Examiner
reversibly erred in concluding it would have been obvious to have provided
a dual-contact assembly on each side of Nakamura's double-sided contact
assembly. For the reasons advanced by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we answer this question in the negative and will
7
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The following comments are
added for emphasis.
It is not disputed that Nakamura teaches a double-sided single contact
assembly between two battery carriages. Compare Br. 9 with Ans. 2. The
Examiner relies on Engira for its teaching of single-sided dual-contact
assemblies on opposing ends of a battery carriage. Ans. 3. The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to have modified Nakamura's double-
sided single contact assembly with Engira's dual-contact assembly and
provides motivation for doing so, i.e., to eliminate the need for the user to
determine the proper direction for the insertion of any axial-type battery.
Ans. 3--4. It is immaterial that Engira does not explicitly teach placing a
double-sided dual contact assembly between battery carriages, as the
Examiner does not rely on Engira for such. Nakamura teaches a double-
sided contact assembly between battery carriages; Engira suggests replacing
the singie contacts on each side with duai-contacts. Further, aithough
Engira's dual contacts are attached to the frame by leaf spring to enable a
pivoting motion, the purpose of this feature is to provide good electrical
connection between the contact plates and the batteries. Such an
arrangement, providing positive force to hold the battery in the carriage, is
similar to the spring 23A in Nakamura. See Nakamura, Fig. 1. Appellant
has not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able
to modify Nakamura with Engira's dual contacts. See KSR Int 'l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.").
8
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
Appellant further argues that Suzuki does not teach or suggest a dual-
contact assembly, nor how Engira's contact plate would be modified to
include both spring-loaded positive and negative contacts. Br. 12.
Appellant notes that while Suzuki includes spring-loaded bent portions,
these portions correspond to separate contacts for parallel battery holders.
Id. In this regard, Appellant urges that Suzuki's spring-loaded bent portions
are not taught or suggested for both positive and negative contacts for the
same battery carriage. Id. Appellant also notes that Suzuki's contacts do not
include a recessed positive contact relative to a spring-loaded, forwardly
disposed, negative contact portion. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We first
note that the Examiner states that Suzuki was not relied upon for its teaching
of a dual-contact assembly. Ans. 5. Instead, the Examiner states that Suzuki
is relied on for its teaching of known positive and negative assemblies
comprising first and second spring-ioaded portions coupied and resiiientiy
movable with respect to each other, i.e., for the basic concept of a spring-
loaded contact. Id. Indeed, Suzuki teaches that conventional battery storage
devices normally use a leaf spring as a battery contact and a bent portion to
assure a given spring force. Suzuki, 1:48-51. Given that Engira uses a
similar deformable leaf spring arrangement to retain an inserted battery in
the carriage, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner's
conclusion that the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to have
provided Engira's dual-contact assembly on spring-loaded portions as
Suzuki suggests.
We further note that Appellant's argument that Suzuki's contacts do
not include a recessed positive contact relative to a spring-loaded, forwardly
9
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
disposed, negative contact portion is also immaterial because Engira's dual-
contact plates provide such an arrangement. Engira, 3:21-24. Thus, Engira
teaches a forwardly disposed battery-engaging surface on the second portion
of the negative contact.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner's
findings or in the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to
have modified the Nakamura's double-sided contact assembly with Engira's
dual-contacts provided on spring-loaded portions as taught by Suzuki.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claim 1.
Appellant does not argue claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17, and 27 separately
from claim 1. As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims
for the same reasons given above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 6
Ciaim 6 depends from claim 1, and further requires one or more
additional battery carriages, and a double-sided dual-contact assembly
between each adjacent pair of carriages. The Examiner finds Nakamura
further teaches additional battery carriages may be provided with double-
sided contact assemblies between adjacent pairs, each of which may be
modified to include Engira's dual-contact assembly. Final 5---6; Ans. 8.
Appellant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose dual-contact
assemblies. Br. 13. However, this argument is not substantively different
from that advanced by Appellant with regard to the rejection of claim 1,
which we did not find persuasive of reversible error. Moreover, this
argument fails to identify reversible error in the Examiner's additional
finding that Nakamura teaches additional battery carriages with double-sided
10
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
contact assemblies between adjacent pairs. Accordingly, Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding the subject matter of claim 6 is
likewise unpatentable over the Nakamura/Engira/Suzuki combination.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 6, and further requires that one or more
of the dual-contact assemblies comprises spring-loaded dual-contact features
on both sides. The Examiner determines that, absent evidence of criticality
or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to
modify the double-sided dual-contact assemblies of the
Nakamura/Engira/Suzuki combination with spring-loaded dual-contacts on
both sides thereof. Final 6.
Although Appellant contends that the Examiner's determination is an
improper basis for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, we note
that this determination rests on the foundation of the obviousness of the
combination of Nakamura, Engira, and Suzuki to establish the obviousness
of a plurality of battery carriages separated by double-sided, dual-contact
assemblies including a spring-loaded feature on at least one side thereof.
Accordingly, the only remaining difference between this combination and
claim 8 is the provision of the spring-loaded feature on both sides of the
assemblies. Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner's
determination per se, but instead advances the same arguments discussed
above, which we have not found persuasive. Accordingly, we will sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 8.
Claim 19
11
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
Independent claim 19, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to Appellant's Brief, recites a double-sided dual-contact assembly between
first and second battery carriages, wherein one side includes a dual-contact
assembly including spring-loaded positive and negative contacts such that
the positive contact includes a recessed, axially central battery-engaging
surface relative to the negative contact's battery-engaging surface.
19. A device having first and second battery carriages, the
device comprising:
a positive circuit connection;
a negative circuit connection;
a substrate;
a double-sided polarity-proof battery contact assembly disposed
on the substrate between the first and second battery carriages, the
double-sided polarity-proof battery contact assembly comprising:
first and second sides including respective first and
second dual contact assemblies, wherein at least one of the first
and second dual contact assemblies comprises a spring-loaded
dual-contact feature including:
a spring-ioaded negative battery contact surface
electrically connected to the negative circuit connection;
and
a spring-loaded positive battery contact surface
electrically connected to the positive circuit connection,
the positive battery contact surface being disposed
recessed and axially central to the negative battery
contact surface; and
first and second single-sided polarity-proof battery contact
assemblies, disposed on the substrate axially in line with the double-
sided polarity-proof battery contact assembly, one on either side of the
double-sided polarity-proof battery contact assembly.
Similarly to the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, here the Examiner
relies on Engira to suggest a modification to Nakamura to provide dual-
contact assemblies in place of single-contact assemblies to eliminate the
12
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
need for the user to determine the proper direction for the insertion of any
axial-type cell. However, instead of relying on Suzuki to teach a spring-
loaded dual-contact assembly, the Examiner relies on Iida, finding Iida
teaches a contact assembly comprising a spring-loaded contact feature on at
least one side thereof. Final 12. The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to have modified the contact assemblies of the
N akamura/Engira combination to include spring-loaded joints as taught in
Iida to prevent any instantaneous electrical power break due to external
shocks. Id. at 13.
Appellant contends, similarly to the arguments raised against the
obviousness rejection of claim 1, that the provision of a double-sided dual-
contact assembly between first and second battery carriages with at least one
of the dual-contact sides including spring-loaded portions of the positive and
negative contacts would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of Engira and Iida. Br. 15-17. However, for the reasons given
above, we do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive with regard to the
combination of Nakamura and Engira.
Further, similar to the Appellant's prior arguments with regard to
Suzuki, Appellant argues that Iida fails to teach or suggest a spring-loaded
positive battery contact surface recessed and axially central to a spring-
loaded negative battery contact surface. Id. at 17. In addition, Appellant
argues that one skilled in the art, faced with Engira's bi-directional battery
holder, would not tum to Iida to prevent electrical contact in a reversed
direction. Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner states that Iida is relied on for its teaching of the basic concept of
13
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
spring-loaded contact assemblies. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that
although Iida discloses the spring-loaded feature for the positive electrode, it
would have been obvious to have applied Iida's spring-loaded feature to the
contacts for preventing a break in electrical power. Final 13. Indeed, Iida
teaches that provision of such a spring-loaded feature prevents instantaneous
breaks of electrical power. Iida, 2:5-12. Given that Engira uses a similar
deformable leaf spring arrangement to retain an inserted battery in the
carriage, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion that
the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to have provided Engira's
dual-contact assembly on spring-loaded portions as Iida suggests.
We further note that Appellant's argument that Iida's contacts do not
include a recessed positive contact relative to a spring-loaded, forwardly
disposed, negative contact portion is also immaterial because Engira's dual-
contact plates provide such an arrangement. Engira, 3:21-24. Thus, Engira
teaches a forwardiy disposed battery-engaging surface on the second portion
of the negative contact.
It follows that Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 19. We, therefore, will sustain
this rejection.
Appellant does not argue dependent claim 21 separately from claim
19. As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim for the same
reasons given above with regard to claim 19.
Claim 28
Claim 28 depends from claim 19, and, similarly to claim 6, further
requires spring-loaded dual-contact features on both sides of the double-
14
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
sided, dual-contact assemblies. As Appellant's arguments with regard to
claim 28 are substantially the same as those raised with regard to claim 6,
which we have not found persuasive, we will sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 28.
Claim 30
Claim 30 depends from claim 19, and further requires an insulator be
disposed between the first and second dual-contact assemblies in a
substantially static position with respect to the substrate. The Examiner
determines that the Nakamura device modified in view of Engira and Iida
"would obviously comprise an insulator between the first and second dual
contact assemblies in a substantially static position with respect to the
substrate to prevent a short circuit between the electrodes of the assemblies."
Final 14.
Appellant argues that, because Engira's dual-contact plate pivots on
the leaf springs to allow outward longitudinal movement, the Examiner's
proposed combination does not achieve nor suggest an insulator between
contact assemblies that is in a substantially static position with respect to the
substrate. Br. 19. We agree. The Examiner has not established that the
provision of an insulator between the first and second dual-contact
assemblies would have been, or even needs to be, in a substantially static
position with respect to the substrate in order to prevent a short circuit. As
Appellant urges, Engira's plates are pivoted on leaf springs with respect to
the substrate. The Examiner does not address this argument, but merely
concludes that the combination would obviously provide such a static
15
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
insulator. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 30.
Claim 22
Independent claim 22, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix
to Appellant's Brief, recites a battery cartridge removably insertable into the
slot of a device component with positive and negative contacts provided in
the slot and on an exterior of the cartridge for electrical coupling when the
cartridge is inserted in the slot, the cartridge including dual-contact
assemblies at each end thereof.
22. A device comprising:
a component with a slot therein, the slot comprising positive
and negative contacts for positive and negative circuit connections;
and
a battery cartridge removably insertable into the slot and
including external positive and negative contacts on an exterior of the
battery cartridge, the externai positive and negative contacts being
electrically coupleable to the positive and negative contacts in the slot
upon insertion of the battery cartridge into the slot, wherein the
battery cartridge comprises:
an internal compartment configured to removably receive
at least one battery; and
first and second dual-contact assemblies positioned at
ends of the internal compartment, each of the first and second
dual-contact assemblies comprising:
a positive contact configured to contact a positive
terminal of a battery and to be electrically coupled to the
positive circuit connection, and
a negative contact configured to contact a negative
terminal of a battery and to be electrically coupled to the
negative circuit connection.
16
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
Similarly to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies
on a combination of Nakamura and Engira. However, unlike the
obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner further combines the
Nakamura device as modified by Engira with Dalton. The Examiner finds
Nakamura discloses a component with a slot having electrical contacts that
are not shown, but would obviously be present as the batteries otherwise
would not function to power the device. Ans. 12. The Examiner also finds
Nakamura teaches a battery cartridge including external electrical contacts
16, 17 electrically coupleable to the electrical contacts of the slot. Id.
However, the Examiner concedes that Nakamura's cartridge is not
removably insertable into the slot. Id. The Examiner finds the Nakamura
and Engira combination does not disclose that the battery cartridge is
removably insertable into a slot in a device component. Final 16. However,
the Examiner finds Dalton discloses battery cartridges insertable into
appiiances. Id. The Examiner concludes that it wouid have been obvious to
have modified the Nakamura cartridge to be removably insertable into a slot
in a device component in view of Dalton. Id. Thus, the Examiner's reliance
on Dalton is merely to teach a removable battery cartridge.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding that
Nakamura's contacts 16, 17 are on the exterior of a battery cartridge. Br. 21.
Instead, Appellant urges that Nakamura teaches a battery enclosure within a
device, rather than a battery cartridge that is removable. Id. at 22. Appellant
also argues that Dalton fails to teach electrical contacts on the exterior of the
cartridge for electrically coupling to electrical contacts provided in the slot.
Id. at 22-23. In particular, Appellant urges that Dalton's cartridge includes
17
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
open ends to allow the batteries to physically contact other batteries or the
appliance, rather than exterior electrical contacts. Id. at 23.
We are persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 22. The Examiner's finding that Nakamura teaches exterior contacts
on a cartridge electrically coupled to interior contacts in a slot is not
supported on the record. As Appellant argues, Nakamura does not teach a
slot having electrical contacts therein, nor does Nakamura teach a cartridge
having electrical contacts on its exterior for electrically coupling with the
slot's contacts. Further, although the Examiner relies on Dalton for a
teaching of a cartridge removably insertable into a slot of a device
component, Dalton does not teach or suggest exterior electrical contacts on
the cartridge. As the Examiner does not rely on Dalton to remedy the
deficiencies in Nakamura with regard to the provision of electrical contacts
both in the slot and on the exterior of the cartridge, the Examiner's
combination faiis to render the claim 22 device obvious.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Examiner has
met the minimum threshold of establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); KSR, 550
U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22, or
dependent claims 23, 25, and 26.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in Appellant's Brief, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-
10, 17-19, 21, 27, and 28 is affirmed. However, for the reasons given above
18
Appeal2013-010499
Application 11/796,265
and in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 22, 23, 25,
26, and 30 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
cdc
19