Ex Parte Ryann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2017

14223660 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P500-06CIP 7384
EXAMINER
SIVJI, NIZARN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/223,660 03/24/2014
105698 7590 07/18/2017
Law Office of William F. Ryann
314 East Commerce Street, Suite 401
San Antonio, TX 78205
William F. Ryann
07/18/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM F. RYANN
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20, all pending claims of the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the application relates to a docking station for
wireless coupling of a mobile device. Spec. Tflf 18, 19.1 Claims 1, 8, and 13
are independent. Independent claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below
with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A docking station comprising structure defining a
cavity for at least partially receiving and immobilizing one of a
variety of differently sized data storing mobile devices in a pin-
free, positionally imprecise manner to wirelessly transfer power
thereto.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Chen et al. (“Chen”)
Howarth et al.
(“Howarth”)
Daniels
Kawamura
US 2003/0030342 Al Feb. 13, 2003
US 2006/0250764 Al Nov. 9, 2006
US 2007/0254724 Al Nov. 1, 2007
US 2010/0081378 Al Apr. 1, 2010
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1—9, 12, 13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Daniels and Chen. Final
Act. 3-11.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following items: (1) Appellant’s
Specification filed March 24, 2014 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action
(Final Act.) mailed January 20, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed
June 14, 2015; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 2, 2015
and (5) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 27, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
(2) Claims 10, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Daniels, Chen, and Kawamura.
Final Act. 11—14.
(3) Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Howarth and Chen. Final Act. 14—15.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Howarth and
Chen teaches or suggests a “docking station comprising structure defining a
cavity for at least partially receiving and immobilizing one of a variety of
differently sized data storing mobile devices in a pin-free, positionally
imprecise manner to wirelessly transfer power thereto,” as recited in
claim 1?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Daniels and
Chen teaches or suggests a “docking station comprising structure defining a
cavity for at least partially receiving and immobilizing one of a variety of
differently sized data storing mobile devices in a pin-free, positionally
imprecise manner to wirelessly transfer power thereto,” as recited in
claim 1?
CONTENTIONS AND DISCUSSION
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent
claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
set forth in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—
3
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
15) and (2) the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 2—7). We highlight the following points for emphasis.
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Howarth teaches “a docking station comprising
... [a] structure defining a cavity” that immobilizes a variety of differently
sized mobile devices in a positionally imprecise manner to transfer power
thereto, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 14 (citing Howarth || 47, 48, and
51).
Appellant argues “the ‘pin-type’ docking (24) of Howarth makes the
option of ‘positionally imprecise’ docking impossible.” Appeal Br. 7.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Appellant, in essence, argues
the Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “positionally imprecise” as
recited in claim 1 is unreasonably broad. Appellant, however, fails to
establish the Examiner’s interpretation is not the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under a broadest
reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim must be given their plain
meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The plain meaning of a term
means the ordinary and customary meaning given by those of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The presumption that a term is given its
ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by Appellant clearly
setting forth a different definition of the term in the Specification. In re
Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, Appellant fails to
demonstrate that “positionally imprecise” has been clearly defined in
4
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
Appellant’s Specification in a way that is inconsistent with the Examiner’s
interpretation.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Howarth’s
base includes adjustable members 28 that have the ability to change the size
and/or shape of the opening 16 to accommodate handheld electronic devices
12 of various shapes and sizes. Ans. 3 (citing Howarth 151). Moreover,
Howarth discloses that walls 18 and 20 may be sloped in a manner that tilts
the hand held electronic device between 5 and 25 degrees. Howarth 148.
Accordingly, we agree that the claimed receiving and immobilizing of
devices in a “positionally imprecise manner,” given a reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, encompasses Howarth’s
accommodating of handheld electronic devices of various shapes and sizes
and securing of the devices at various tilt angles. Ans. 3.
Appellant next argues Chen does not teach “docking in a 4positionally
imprecise manner. ’” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner, however, relies on
Howarth, rather than Chen, to teach docking in a positionally imprecise
manner. Final Act. 14; Ans. 2—3. Appellant’s argument does not address
the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Howarth and is,
therefore, unpersuasive.
The Examiner relies on Chen to teach receiving a mobile device in a
pin-free manner to wirelessly transfer power thereto. Final Act. 15; Ans. 4—
5.
Appellant argues Chen does not teach transferring power in a pin-free
manner. Appeal Br. 11—14. Specifically, Appellant argues “Chen
unequivocally teaches pin-type docking and only pin-type docking” because
“pin 404 may be plugged into the socket 410.” Appeal Br. 12.
5
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Chen discloses “‘contactless’ battery-charging
stations, refer[red] to as pin-free where the typical separation between
varying magnetic field generator 26 and receiving coil 30 is from about ,5 cm
to about 2.0 cm.” Ans. 4 (citing Chen H 7—9, 73—75 and Fig. 5). That is,
we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Chen’s placement of
elongate receiver housing 404 within charging portion 410 “unequivocally
teaches pin-type docking” because Appellant fails to provide sufficient
evidence to establish that receiver housing 404 equates to a pin used to make
electrical contact for non-wireless charging. Appeal Br. 12; see also Spec.
135.
Appellant next argues
Even if it could be argued that Chen’s elongate housing 404 is
not the type of pin as found in Howarth (see features 24, 26 at
p. 7 above), this is still not Applicant’s claimed “pin-free”
docking but instead still constitutes pin-type docking (e.g. as
referenced at par. 5 of the current Application’s Background).
This is further highlighted in the present Application which
clarifies that “pin-free” requires no “prong”,“pin”,“serial port”,
“USB protrusion” or any “physically precise matched
pairing”, etc. as shown here-above with Chen (see par. 39).
Appeal Br. 12.
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Chen’s contactless charging suggests pin-free
charging. Ans. 4. That is, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that
Chen’s contactless charging requires a “‘prong’, ‘pin’, ‘serial port’, ‘USB
protrusion’ or any ‘physically precise matched pairing.’” Appeal Br. 12
(emphasis removed). Initially, as discussed above, we do not agree with
6
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
Appellant’s argument that Chen’s receiver housing 404 equates to a pin. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant fails to provide persuasive evidence that receiver
housing 404 equates to any of a prong, serial port, or USB protrusion. Id.
We also disagree that Chen’s contactless charging requires physically
precise matched pairing. Id. To the contrary, Chen states that “[b]y proper
placement of elongate receiver housing 404 relative to different size main
body housings, and the use of a relatively large cradle portion, a single
charging base unit can accommodate a wide variety of different sizes and
types of portable devices,” thereby suggesting precision pairing is not
required. Chen 161.
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Daniels teaches “a docking station . . . comprising
[a] structure defining a cavity” that immobilizes a variety of differently sized
mobile devices in a positionally imprecise manner to transfer power thereto
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Daniels Abstract and 17, 18).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s finding is erroneous because Daniels
requires precisionally precise docking. Specifically, Appellant argues “the
precision that is required in Daniels is largely attributable to the continued
need for conventional pin-type charger coupling.” Appeal Br. 16.
We find this argument unpersuasive.
As discussed above with respect to Howarth, Appellant fails to
demonstrate that the Examiner’s interpretation of “positionally imprecise” is
unreasonably broad because Appellant fails to show the term has been
clearly defined in Appellant’s Specification in a way that is inconsistent with
the Examiner’s interpretation. In re Morris, 111 F.3d at 1054. Thus, in
7
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
view of the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of “positionally
imprecise,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding that because Daniels’
“holder can be adjusted by moving the adjustable dividers to respective
positions to accommodate multiple or unusual size devices) to transfer
power thereto,” Daniels teaches the claimed receiving and immobilizing of
differently sized mobile devices in a positionally imprecise manner. Final
Act. 3^4. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that precision is required
in Daniels due to Daniels’ need for pin-type charger coupling. Appeal
Br. 16. To the contrary, Daniels states “[t]he holder can be adjusted by
moving the adjustable dividers to respective positions to accommodate
multiple or unusual size devices.” Daniels 112. Moreover, Daniels further
discloses that horizontal bar 15 and vertical bars 6 can be adjusted to change
the position of one or more devices “to allow for the best viewing of the
devices.” Daniels 118. Thus, because Daniels suggests immobilizing
different sized devices while allowing adjustment of the device positions to
enhance viewing, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Daniels teaches
“partially receiving and immobilizing one of a variety of differently sized
data storing mobile devices in a . . . positionally imprecise manner,” as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further argues “[n]o matter
what device size flexibility is taught by Daniels, any system in which the
device still ‘has to be’ oriented a certain way for docking is teaching the
exact opposite of Applicant’s claimed ‘positionally imprecise’ docking.”
Reply Br. 7. We disagree, because even assuming Daniels requires devices
to be oriented horizontally or vertically, Daniels still allows adjustment of
the device positions to enhance viewing, thereby teaching immobilizing the
devices in a positionally imprecise manner. Daniels 118.
8
Appeal 2016-000842
Application 14/223,660
Appellant next provides arguments distinguishing claim 1 from Chen.
Those arguments are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect
to Issue 1 and so we find the arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
provided above.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 8 and 13, which recite similar limitations and are not argued
separately, for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 4, 20. Dependent claims 2—7, 9—
12 and 14—20, are not argued separately, and thus fall with their respective
independent claims. Appeal Br. 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9