Ex parte ROBBINS

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 10, 1998

08220406 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 10, 1998)

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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte DANIEL C. ROBBINS
_______________
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application 08/220,4061
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and KRASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 17 and 20 through 24. Claims 2 through 6, 9,
11 through 16, 18 and 19 have been canceled.
The invention pertains to a portable computer that is
convertible between multiple operative positions. For example,
as shown in Figure 1, both the screen and keyboard
are viewable by a user but with the proper orientation and

1 Application for patent filed March 30, 1994. According to
appellant this application is a continuation of Application No.
07/994,856, filed December 22, 1992, now abandoned.
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
2
movement of the pivoted cover, base and display portion, the
computer can be placed, for example, in the position shown in
Figure 4 wherein the keyboard is protected by the cover and only
the screen portion is viewable. This position might be chosen
for input employing a pen whereas the previous position might be
used for input employing a keyboard.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A convertible computer, comprising:
a base portion having a keyboard side and a rear side;
a display portion, pivotally attached to said base
portion, having a display and input assembly side and a rear
side; and
a cover pivotally attached to said base portion,
wherein said cover is positionable at a first position
over the keyboard side of said base portion when the rear side of
said display portion is positioned substantially adjacent the
rear side of said base portion, and at a second position
substantially adjacent the rear side of said base portion when
both the keyboard side of the base portion and the display and
input assembly side of said display portion can simultaneously be
viewed by a user.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Lloyd 5,002,184 Mar. 26, 1991
Toshiba (EP) 0,454,120 Oct. 30, 1991
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 17 and 20 through 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Toshiba in view of
Lloyd.
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
3
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse as we find that the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant
claimed subject matter.
The examiner contends that Toshiba discloses the claimed
invention except for the cover hinged to the computer and we
agree. The examiner also contends that Lloyd teaches the
provision of a cover hinged to a computer and, again, we agree.
However, the examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious “to provide a cover hinged to a computer as taught by
Lloyd, since Lloyd states at column 1, line 61-column 2, line 12
that such a modification would provide a high degree of
protection for the computer” [answer-page 3]. The examiner’s
further explanations, at page 4 of the answer, as to how one
would make the selection of how to mount the cover, appear, to
us, to be no more than impermissible hindsight.
The instant claims call for a cover “pivotally attached to
said base portion” [claim 1], “pivotally attached to the second
end of said base portion” [claim 10], or “flexibly connected to
said second panel” [claim 17]. Toshiba, as the examiner
recognizes, has no such cover. Moreover, the skilled artisan
would not have seen the need to supply a cover in Toshiba since
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
4
Toshiba’s device is already clearly protected, at least as shown,
for example, in Figures 7A, 7B and 7D. One might argue that the
keyboard appears to be unprotected in the Figure 7C mode of
Toshiba, wherein the keyboard 27 is on the bottom of the device,
and so the artisan might have been led to provide for protection
of the keyboard in that circumstance. However, even if we were
to agree that the artisan would have recognized the desirability
of a cover, or some protective device, for the keyboard in
Toshiba, when in the Figure 7C configuration, there is still no
suggestion or teaching in the applied references, taken as a
whole, which would have led the artisan to provide for a cover,
as specifically claimed.
The instant claims do not merely call for a pivotal or
flexible cover but, rather, that cover must be
positionable at a first position over the keyboard side
of said base portion when the rear side of said display
portion is positioned substantially adjacent the rear
side of said base portion, and at a second position
substantially adjacent the rear side of said base
portion when both the keyboard side of the base portion
and the display and input assembly side of said display
portion can simultaneously be viewed by a user. [claim
1].
Independent claims 7 and 10 contain similar language.
There is clearly no evidence provided by the applied
references indicating how or why the pivotable cover taught by
Lloyd would be applied to Toshiba in any way so as to result in a
cover positionable in two positions as specifically required by
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
5
the claim language. For example, taking the Figure 7 embodiment
of Toshiba, in order to meet the instant claim language, any
cover applied to Toshiba’s device would need to be across the
bottom of the device (covering the keyboard 27) as the device is
depicted in Figure 7C and switchable to a second position so as
to be across the bottom of main case 29 in Figure 7A. There is
simply no evidence of record indicating how, or why, a pivotable
cover would be attachable in Toshiba’s device so as to result in
these two positions. The reason, of course, is that the two
pivots attached to the ends of the base member in the instant
invention make possible the two positions recited in the claims
whereas Toshiba teaches a pivot only at one end of the base
member. Thus, even if a cover would somehow be attached in
Toshiba in a manner so as to meet the instant claim language with
respect to one position, that cover would not be positionable in
the other position required by the claims.
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
6
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Kenneth W. Hairston ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-0794
Application No. 08/220,406
7
Paul J. Maginot
AT&T Global Information Solutions Co.
1700 S. Patterson Blvd.
Dayton, OH 45479