Ex Parte RyannDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 201714223660 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation