Ex Parte Solomon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2014

11263233 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARK C. SOLOMON, PAUL J. DOCZY, and
KEVIN L. MASSARO
____________________

Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Disclosed Invention
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to an electronic device (claim
1) and a method of manufacturing an electronic device (claim 15) having a
flexible display screen capable of being positioned for use as a laptop or
desktop computer (Spec. ¶¶ 1 and 11–15; Figs. 1A-C and 2; Abs.).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 10 under appeal read as follows:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a flexible housing including a plurality of rigid support
members coupled to each other by a flexible fold portion, the
flexible fold portion embedded within the flexible housing and
enabling rotational movement of the plurality of rigid support
members relative to each other so the flexible housing can flex
to rotate between an open position and a closed position; and
a flexible display screen extending across the flexible
fold portion, wherein the flexible fold portion divides the
flexible display screen into a first screen portion and a second
screen portion that both display image content.

10. An electronic device, comprising:
a flexible display screen including an axis separating the
flexible display screen into a first screen portion and a second
screen portion both to display image content; and
a flexible housing including rigid support members that
support the flexible display screen, a flexible fold portion that
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

3
extends between the rigid support members and along a length
of the axis of the flexible display screen, and raised edge
portions that extend about a periphery of the flexible housing
and along opposite sides of the first and second screen portions
of the flexible display screen, wherein the flexible display
screen and the flexible fold portion fold along the axis to move
the flexible housing and the flexible display screen between a
closed position and an open position, and wherein the raised
edge portions are disposed against each other to form a gap
between the first and second screen portions when the flexible
housing and the flexible display screen are in the closed
position.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide adequate written description of
the claimed invention. Final Act. 2–3. Because the Examiner has
withdrawn of the § 112 rejection (Ans. 2), we will not address this rejection
or Appellants’ arguments directed thereto.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 17–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hisano (US 2006/0034042 A1;
published Feb. 16, 2006).1 Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 2–4.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9–14, 16, and 22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hisano. Final Act. 10–18; Ans.
5–7.

1 Although the Examiner includes claim 7 in the heading of the statement of
the anticipation rejection, the merits of claim 7 (one of first and second
portions of screen includes a keyboard) are not discussed in the body of the
rejection (see Final Act. 3). For purposes of appeal, we consider the
Examiner only to have rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 17–21 based on
anticipation by Hisano.
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

4
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 2 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Hisano and Sacripante (US
2001/0051263 A1; published Dec. 13, 2001). Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 7.
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 23 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Hisano and Canova, Jr.
(US 7,289,083 B1; issued Oct. 30, 2007). Final Act. 20–22; Ans. 7.
Appellants’ Contentions
(1) Appellants contend (App. Br. 9–12; Reply Br. 2–4) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 17–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for numerous reasons, including that:
(a) Hisano fails to disclose a housing with a flexible fold
portion embedded within a flexible housing and enabling rotational
movement of plural rigid support members, as recited in each of
independent claims 1 and 15 (App. Br. 9–11);
(b) Hisano’s hinges 6A and 6B are not embedded within a
flexible housing, and because the axis along hinges 6A/6B is just a
straight line about which the first housing 2 and the second housing 4
rotate, it is not a flexible fold portion and does not flex, as recited in
claims 1 and 15 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2–4); and
(c) Hisano fails to disclose an axis extending along a length of
an axis separating a flexible display screen into first and second
portions, as recited in each of dependent claims 6 and 21 (App. Br.
11–12).
(2) Appellants contend (App. Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 4–6) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 9–14, 16, and 22 under
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hisano for numerous reasons,
including:
(a) Hisano’s hinges 6A and 6B do not extend along the length
of an axis as recited in independent claim 10 (App. Br. 14; Reply Br.
5); and
(b) Hisano’ fails to disclose the “raised edge portions” recited in
independent claim 10 (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4–6).
(3) Appellants contend (App. Br. 16–18) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 4, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for numerous reasons,
including that the secondary references fail to cure the deficiencies of
Hisano as discussed in the previous arguments presented with respect to
claims 1 and 15 from which claims 2, 4, and 23 respectively depend.
Principal Issues on Appeal2
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–19)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–7), and the principal issues presented on
appeal are:

2 Appellants’ argument as to the anticipation of claim 13 (App. Br. 12) is
misplaced, as claim 13 is rejected for obviousness and not anticipation.
Appellants present the same arguments for patentability of claims 11–14 as
are presented for independent claim 10 (App. Br. 14–15). No separate
arguments are presented as to claims 7 and 16 rejected for obviousness
(App. Br. 13–16). Appellants’ arguments for claims 9 and 22 are similar to
the arguments presented for representative claim 10 (e.g., that Hisano fails to
disclose the recited edge support members having “raised edge portions”)
(App. Br. 15–16). Claim 15 contains features similar in scope to claim 1. In
view of the foregoing, we select (i) claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, 19, and 20 rejected for anticipation by Hisano; and (ii)
claim 10 as representative of the group of claims 7, 9, 10–14, 16, and 22
rejected for obviousness over Hisano.
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

6
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–5, 15, and 17, 19, 20,
and 23 as being anticipated or obvious because Hisano fails to disclose an
electronic device, as recited in representative independent claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 21 as being
anticipated because Hisano fails to disclose an electronic device having an
axis extending along a length of an axis separating a flexible display screen
into first and second portions, as recited in dependent claims 6 and 21?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8 and 18 as being
anticipated because Hisano fails to disclose an electronic device having first
and second rigid support members embedded within a flexible housing, as
recited in dependent claims 8 and 18?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting representative claims 7, 9–14,
16, and 22 as being obvious because Hisano fails to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of representative independent claim 10?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–19) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2–7) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Rej. 3–22),
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2–7). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

7
With regard to representative independent claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner (Final Rej. 3–5; Ans. 2–4) that Hisano’s device (shown at least in
Figure 17 and described at least in paragraph 112) is encompassed by claim
1, because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3) that Hisano’s bendable
display device 180 comprises display areas 180A and 180B which bend
around an axis between hinges 6A and 6B (see Fig. 17; ¶ 0112 (“given a
display device 180 which is flexible and bendable, the bendable display
panel 180 may be extended across the first housing 2 and second housing 4
rotatably connected together by the hinges 6A and 6B and may be attached
to both housings 2 and 4 as shown in FIG. 17”). Thus, Hisano discloses a
flexible housing (shown in Figure 17) that comprises two rigid support
members (i.e., housings 2 and 4) and hinges 6A and 6B (which are shown as
extending from projection arms included in housings 2 and 4). Hisano also
discloses a flexible fold portion which comprises at least the projection arms
which extend to hinges 6A and 6B, hinges 6A and 6B, and/or the
portion/axis shown in the Examiner’s marked-up Figure 17 on page 3 of the
Answer.
With regard to claims 6 and 21, we agree with the Examiner (Final
Rej. 5–6 and 9; Ans. 4–5) that Hisano discloses a flexible fold portion
extending along an axis between hinges 6A and 6B (see Figure 17), first and
second display areas 180A and 180B (which are equivalent to the recited
first and second screen portions), and housings 2 and 4 which comprise a
flexible housing, as recited in claims 6 and 21.
With regard to claims 8 and 18, we agree with the Examiner (Final
Rej. 6 and 8; Ans. 5) that Hisano (Fig. 17; ¶ 0112) discloses rigid support
members embedded within the flexible housing, and that this finding is
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

8
supported by Appellants’ Figure 1B and paragraph 14 of the Specification.
Specifically, paragraph 0014 of Appellants’ Specification describes a
flexible display screen 12 including display portions 12a and 12b, a housing
22 having rigid support members 44 and 46 which operate to fold the screen
12 at the fold portion 23 which includes a foldable member 42. Because we
consider the “flexible fold portion” recited in representative claim 1 to be
supported by at least the fold portion 23 and foldable member 42, we find
Hisano’s projection arms and hinges shown in Figure 17 to be equivalent to
the recited flexible fold portion that enables rotational movement so that the
device/housing can open and close. Appellants have not rebutted the
Examiner’s reasoning (see Ans. 5) in the Reply Brief or shown otherwise
(see generally App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2–4).
With regard to representative independent claim 10, Appellants’
contentions (App. Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 4–6) that Hisano fails to disclose the
raised edge portion limitations of claim 10 are unpersuasive in light of the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning found at pages 5–7 of the Answer.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants, by addressing
only the disclosure of Hisano, have not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness as to representative claim 10 found at pages 12–14 of
the Final Rejection and reasoning found at pages 5–7 of the Answer (both
the Final Rejection and the Answer address the obviousness of claim 10
from the perspective of modifying and adapting the rubber pads 14A and
14B in Figure 1 of Hisano).
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16–18) that Sacripante or Canova
fails to cure the deficiencies of Hisano are unpersuasive in light of the
Examiner’s reliance upon Hisano for the disputed limitations.
Appeal 2012-010577
Application 11/263,233

9
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s (i) anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–8, 15, and 17–21, and (ii) obviousness rejections
of claims 2, 4, 7, 9–14, 16, 22, and 23.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5–8, 15, and 17–
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hisano.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7, 9–14, 16, and 22 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hisano.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 2 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Hisano and
Sacripante.
(4) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4 and 23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Hisano and
Canova.

DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1–
23 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc