Ex parte LAUGHLIN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 1998

08029492 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 11, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID P. LAUGHLIN

_____________
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,4921
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
Our understanding of this reference is based upon a2
translation provided by the Scientific and Technical Information
Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the
translation is enclosed with this decision.
2
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 31, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a base portion containing a central processing unit;
a lid portion containing a display coupled to the central
processing unit and a projector for projecting video information
from the central processing unit; and
a hinge connecting the lid portion to the base portion.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Rabeisen 4,371,893 Feb. 01, 1983
Maeser et al. (Maeser) 4,803,652 Feb. 07, 1989
Araki 5,091,873 Feb. 25, 1992
Mohler et al. (Mohler) 5,160,919 Nov. 03, 1992
Saito 01-237592 Sep. 22, 19892
(Japanese patent publication)
Claims 1 to 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in the
following manner. Araki alone is relied upon as to claims 1 to
4, 7, 10, 12 and 14. Araki in view of Maeser is relied upon as
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
3
to claims 11 and 13, while Araki in view of Mohler is relied upon
by the examiner to reject claims 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30 and
31. In another rejection the examiner has relied upon the
combination of teachings from Araki, Mohler and Maeser as to
claims 28 and 29. Araki and Rabeisen are used to reject claims
5, 6 and 17, with the addition of Mohler as to claims 22 and 23.
The examiner has relied upon Araki in view of Mohler, further in
view of Saito as to claims 25 and 26, with the further addition
of Maeser and Rabeisen as to claims 18 and 19. Finally, Araki
and Saito are relied upon to reject claims 8 and 9.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all rejections of the claims on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in light of Araki alone, this claim requires “a lid portion
containing a display coupled to the central processing unit and a
projector for projecting video information from the central
processing unit.” We agree with appellant’s view that this
limitation is not taught or suggested in Araki.
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
4
The above quoted limitation requires a display and a
projector. Araki provides only an LCD display 3. The
fluorescent lamp 6 is a light source for the front lighted LCD
display panel 3. However, the fluorescent lamp 6 does not
project any information let alone video information from any
source. Thus, there is no information projected from the central
processing unit as claimed as well by the fluorescent lamp 6. It
is only the liquid crystal display 3 that displays information
from the word processor 1, which we conclude the artisan would
have recognized would have inherently included a central
processing unit. Araki’s device also does not include within any
single element, the claimed lid portion, both a display and a
projector of any kind.
The remaining independent claims contain a similar
limitation as just quoted with respect to claim 1. Independent
claims 18 and 19 contain a similarly recited lid portion with the
display and projector for respectively projecting video
information and images. The lid portion of independent claim 20
contains a display and a projector for displaying images from the
central processing unit. Finally, independent claim 31 also
recites the removable lid having a display portion and an
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
5
adjacent projector portion which projects images from the central
processing unit.
As to these deficiencies, the examiner’s combination of
Araki and Mohler does not cure at least this defect as to
independent claims 20 and 31. Turning to independent claims 18
and 19, the examiner has combined all five references relied upon
in the answer in an effort to reach the subject matter of these
claims. It is difficult to follow and understand the examiner’s
reasoning as to any rationale, motivation or line of reasoning
why the artisan would have found it obvious to have combined
the teachings and suggestions of each of the respective
references in any manner let alone in the manner claimed to reach
the subject matter of independent claims 18 and 19 on appeal. In
any event, we find that none of the five references relied upon
to reject claims 18 and 19 or any combination of these references
would have led the artisan to have formed a single lid portion
with a liquid crystal display, the lid portion further having a
projector for projecting either video information from the
central processing unit or projecting images from the central
processing unit as claimed.
Appeal No. 95-3254
Application 08/029,492
6
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Paul W. Martin
AT&T Global Information Solutions
Law Department, ECD-2
101 W. Schantz Avenue
Dayton, OH 45479-0001