Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13673284 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/673,284 11109/2012
95866 7590 09/02/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
XiaofengLI
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.
45644-US-PAT 7647
EXAMINER
DZIERZYNSKI, EV AN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2875
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOFENG LI, CHAO CHEN, and LI HUANG
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Sato,2 rejecting claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Park,3 and
rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Research in Motion
Limited. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Sato, US 2011/0149605 Al, published June 23, 2011 ("Sato").
3 Park, US 2011/0290629 Al, published Dec. 1, 2011 ("Park").
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
We REVERSE.4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus and method
pertaining to an apparatus having a plurality of keycaps and a light guide
film disposed on an underside of the keycaps. Spec. i-f 11; claims 1 and 9.
Appellants disclose that physical keyboards including one or more moving
mechanical elements remain in demand. Spec. i-f 2. Physical keyboards can
include backlighting to illuminate part or all of a keycap and/or information
content presented on the keycap. Spec. i-f 3. However, backlighting can be
inconsistent across a keyboard, which makes accurate use of a keyboard
problematic and detracts from the aesthetics of a keyboard. Spec. i-f 4. In
view of this, Appellants disclose a light guide film for a keyboard in which
the light guide film has a thicker periphery than an interior portion of the
light guide film. Spec. i-f 11. This results in more light being available at the
thicker portions of the light guide film for backlighting purposes. Id.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. The limitations at issue are italicized.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of keycaps;
a light guide film disposed on an underside of the plurality
of keycaps, the light guide film having a periphery and wherein
at least portions of the periphery are thicker than an interior
portion of the light guide film and are disposed in full
registration with at least one of the plurality of keycaps.
4 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed November 9,
2012, Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Sept. 15, 2014 (Appeal Br.), the
Examiner's Answer delivered October 24, 2014 (Ans.), and Appellants'
Reply Brief filed December 23, 2014 (Reply Br.).
2
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sato discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality
of keycaps and a light guide film. Ans. 2. An annotated copy of Figure 1 of
Sato is reproduced below.
Fig. l
top cover 5
Sato, Figure 1 depicts a front view of a key sheet.
3
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
Figure 1 illustrates a key sheet 1005 including a top cover 5 (as
annotated above, and shown in Figure 2) and key tops 4a, 4b contained
within openings 50a, 50b of the top cover 5. Sato i-f 33. Key top 4a includes
functional keys 41a, 41b; cursor key 42; and enter key 43. Sato i-f 33. Key
top 4b includes key buttons 44. Id. The key sheet 100 can be incorporated
into a portable electronic device, as depicted in the annotated copy of Figure
5 reproduced below.
,
S3 52~
Fig. 5
periphery of light guide
sheet cited by Examiner
Sato, Figure 5 is a cross-sectional view of a key sheet incorporated in a
casing of a portable electronic device.
Figure 5 depicts the cross-sectional view of the key sheet 100
disposed within a case 50 of a portable electronic device. Sato i-fi-1 49, 50.
5 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
As shown in Figure 5, the key sheet 100 further includes a light guide sheet
1. Sato i-f 34. The Examiner finds the periphery of the light guide sheet 1,
which is annotated in Figure 5 above, is thicker than an interior portion of
the light guide sheet 1. Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds the periphery of
the light guide sheet 1 is in full registration with at least one of a plurality of
keycaps, citing the top cover 5 for the latter. Id.
Appellants argue Sato does not disclose at least a portion of a
periphery of a light guide sheet, which is thicker than an interior portion,
disposed in full registration with at least one of a plurality of keycaps, as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6-7. In response to the Examiner's finding6
that Sato discloses the top cover 5 as a "key top" in paragraphs 34 and 39,
Appellants contend these are typographical errors because the same
component is referred to as a "top cover" in the rest of the disclosure of Sato
and because the top cover 5 lacks the structure of a key. Appeal Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Sato discloses a key top
includes a plurality of key buttons. Sato i-fi-1 2, 11. For instance, key top 4a
includes functional keys 41a, 41b; cursor key 42; and enter key 43, and key
top 4b includes key buttons 44, as depicted in Figure 1 above and disclosed
in paragraph 33 of Sato.
Although Sato refers to the top cover 5 as "key top" in paragraphs 34
and 39, as the Examiner finds, 7 Sato does not disclose that the top cover 5
includes any keys or key buttons, like key top 4a or key top 4b. Instead,
6 See annotated reproduction of Figure 5 of Sato at Ans. 8.
7 Ans. 8, 11. At page 11 of the Answer, the Examiner cites paragraph 35
instead of paragraph 34, which appears to be a typographical error.
5
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
Sato discloses the top cover 5 functions to provide "general shape stability
and rigidity of the key sheet [100], and can fix position of the key top." Sato
i-f 36. Moreover, paragraph 33 of Sato discloses that key tops 4a and 4b,
which include keys, are contained within openings 50a and 50b of top cover
5. Therefore, the disclosures in paragraphs 34 and 39 of the top cover 5 as a
"key top" appear to be inadvertent errors when considering the disclosure of
Sato as a whole.
The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification does not define a
specific structure for the keycaps recited in claim 1 and, therefore, finds
Sato's top cover 5 is a keycap. Ans. 11. We disagree. Appellants' Figure 6,
reproduced below, depicts a keypad subassembly 600 to be secured to a light
guide film subassembly 500. Spec. i-f 30.
Figure 6 is an exploded view of a keypad subassembly and a light guide film
subassembly
6
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
Appellants' Specification, paragraph 30, discloses that the keypad
subassembly 600 includes a plurality of keycaps 601 on its upper surface.
The keycaps 601 depicted in Figure 6 are structurally and functionally
analogous to Sato's key buttons 41a, 41b, 42, 43 of key top 4a and key
buttons 44 of key top 4b. As discussed above, Sato does not disclose any
key button or keycap structure for the top cover 5, such as the keys of key
tops 4a and 4b, similar to the keycaps 601 depicted in Figure 6. Instead,
Sato discloses the top cover 5 functions to position a key top and provides
rigidity and stability for the key sheet 100. Therefore, the Examiner's
interpretation of the top cover 5 as a key top or a keycap is not reasonable
and the disclosure of Sato does not support the Examiner's finding that the
top cover 5 of Sato is at least one of a plurality of keycaps in full registration
with the thick periphery of the light guide sheet 1 of Sato.
Independent claim 9 recites a method in which at least a portion of a
thicker peripheral portion of a light guide film is disposed in full registration
with at least one of a plurality of keycaps. In the rejection of claim 9, the
Examiner finds the top cover 5 of Sato functions as at least one of a plurality
of keycaps in full registration with the thicker peripheral portion of the light
guide film. Ans. 4. For the same reasons discussed above with regard to
claim 1, Sato does not support the Examiner's finding.
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection under§ 102 over Sato is
not supported by the record and is not sustained.
The remaining § 103 rejections over Sato and Park and over Sato
alone have the same deficiencies as the § 102 rejection of claim 1. Although
the remaining § 103 rejections rely on an additional prior art reference or a
rationale to modify Sato, the Examiner does not rely on the additional
7
Appeal2015-003280
Application 13/673,284
reference or rationale to remedy the deficiencies of Sato. Therefore, we also
do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 6, 7 and 13-15
for the same reasons.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellants'
Appeal and Reply Briefs, we reverse the Examiner's§§ 102 and 103
rejections.
REVERSED
8