Ex Parte Tracy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

12407943 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/407,943 0312012009
22879 7590 12/24/2015
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark S. Tracy
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.
82249046 8317
EXAMINER
WILSON, ADRIAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2015 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKS. TRACY, PAUL J. DOCZY, and
DUSTIN L. HOFFMAN
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/ 407 ,94 3
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1-3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15-23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a notebook computer display
enclosure with insert-molded antenna cables, which allegedly simplifies the
assembly and service process and reduces the space needed within the
enclosure for cable routing (Spec. i-f 10).
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/407,943
Claim l is illustrative:
1. A display housing, comprising:
an injection-molded enclosure, configured for hinged attachment to a
base of a portable computer at a hinge region; and
a conductive cable, extending from the hinge region and insert-
molded into regions of increased thickness of adjacent sidewalls of the
enclosure relative to adjacent regions of the adjacent sidewalls of the
enclosure to encase the conductive cable within the enclosure with an
end of the conductive cable extending from the enclosure at the hinge
reg10n.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as unpatentable over Homer et al. (U.S. 2007/0252699 Al,
published Nov. 1, 2007) (hereinafter "Homer") in view of Snider et al.
(U.S. 2008/0049949 Al, published Feb. 28, 2008) (hereinafter
"Snider").
2. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Snider, Homer, and Asano et ai. (U.S.
2006/0061512 Al, published Mar. 23, 2006) (hereinafter "Asano").
3. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Snider, Homer, and Ji et al. (U.S.
200910179806 Al, published July 16, 2009) (hereinafter "Ji").
Regarding rejection (1), Appellants' arguments focus on the subject
matter common to independent claims 1, 6, and 12 (App. Br. 7-11). We
select claim 1 as representative. Appellants separately argue claims 20 and
23 (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants do not separately argue any other dependent
claims under rejection (1) or those dependent claims under rejections (2) and
2
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/407,943
(3). Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15-19 will stand or fall with our analysis of
the rejection of claim 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
Appellants advance the following arguments against the rejection of
claim 1: (1) Snider's wire mesh screen is not a conductive cable within the
meaning of claim 1 (App. Br. 9), and (2) Snider's wire mesh screen is not
encased or encapsulated within the housing assembly with an end of the wire
mesh screen extending from the housing assembly or with the end of the
wire mesh screen extending from an encapsulated portion of the wire mesh
screen (App. Br. 9). Regarding claims 20 and 23 Appellants argue that
Figure 37 of Snider fails to teach that the wire screen is encased or
encapsulated in the thicker edge frames 484, 486, 488, and 490 as is required
by claims 20 and 23 (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants contend that the wire mesh
474 is simply adjacent the surface of the polymeric housing to permit
electrical connection with grounding clips. Id.
Appellants' arguments improperly attack the references individually
instead of addressing what the combined teachings would have suggested to
the ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds that Homer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1,
except for the limitation that the conductor is insert-molded within the
display housing enclosure (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds that Snider
teaches an injection molded enclosure 472 having a conductor extending
around all four sides of the enclosure and being insert-molded into the walls
of the enclosure (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to have insert-molded the antenna cable in Homer (i.e.,
3
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/407,943
conductor) into the sidewall of the enclosure since Homer suggests that the
conductor could be connected from the antenna in various ways. Id. The
Examiner further finds that by insert-molding the antenna cable (i.e.,
conductor), the housing is more structurally sound and the antenna cable
(i.e., conductor) is also better protected since it is within the housing wall.
Id.
The Examiner's rejection is, thus, based upon Homer teaching a
conductive cable (i.e., antenna cable) extending out from the hinge area.
The Examiner's proposed modification of Homer is to insert-mold the
conductive cable into the display housing. The Examiner's reason for the
modification is based upon Snider's teaching that it is known to insert-mold
a conductive wire mesh into the polymeric body. Appellants' arguments
regarding Snider's failure to teach a conductive cable with a portion of the
cable extending from the hinge region is not persuasive because it does not
address what the combined teachings would have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan.
Appellants argue that Snider does not teach in Figure 37 that the wire
mesh is encased or encapsulated but rather that the wire mesh is adjacent to
the inner surface of the casing (Reply Br. 4 ). Appellants make this similar
argument with regard to claims 20 and 23 with regard to the thicker comer
regions between the sidewalls of the housing (App. Br. 11). Appellants'
argument fails to appreciate that Snider is not limited solely to embedding
the conductive wire mesh in the polymer at the surface of the housing.
Rather, as noted by Appellants, Snider discloses embodiments where the
wire screen 212 is centered in the wall portions of the case to prevent
inadvertent grounding of the housing assembly to interior and exterior
4
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/407,943
structures (Snider i1269; Reply Br. 4). Indeed, Snider discloses in Figures
15 and 16 an embodiment where the wire mesh screen is fully encapsulated
within polymer forming the housing including the comer regions, but
portions of the polymer are removed to permit the conductive wire mesh to
be exposed (Snider i-fi-1272-273). Snider discloses that at the exposed
portions grounding clips 218 are connected to the conductive wire mesh
(Snider i1273). Therefore, Snider teaches to fully encapsulate or encase a
conductive element and leave portions of it exposed for electrical
connection.
Therefore, once Homer's display is modified by using Snider's insert-
molding method to mold the conductive cables 50 and 52 into the display
member 18, the resulting display member housing structure would have had
an area with increased thickness at the comer where the sidewalls meet in
order to accommodate the two encapsulated conductive cables. The
Examiner also finds that the area of increased thickness of the molded
display would have made the housing more structurally sound and would
have better protected the conductor since the conductor is enclosed within
the polymer material leading the ordinarily skilled artisan to make the
modification (Final Act. 3).
Appellants' argument that Snider does not teach a conductive cable is
faulty for two reasons. First, the Examiner is not relying on Snider to teach
a conductive cable (Final Act. 2). Rather, the Examiner finds that Homer
teaches a conductive cable for use in a display housing. Second, the
Examiner reasonably finds that Snider's wire mesh is conductive and would
have suggested encapsulating conductive materials such as Homer's cable.
We note that Appellants' definition of "cable" in the Specification does not
5
Appeal2013-010407
Application 12/407,943
necessarily exclude Snider's wire mesh (Spec. i1 11 ). The definition of cable
provided by Appellants is: "any type of electrical conductor, including solid
wire, twisted cables, etc." Id. "Any type of electrical conductor" does not
exclude Snider's wire mesh. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that Homer
teaches a conductive cable, which Appellants do not contest.
Appellants provide the following untimely arguments in the Reply
Brief: (1) Snider is non-analogous art (Reply Br. 4) and (2) modifying
Homer to have a cable encased within a housing like disclosed in Snider
would change the principle of operation of the Homer reference and would
render Homer unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (Reply Br. 5). These
arguments were not raised in the principal Brief. The Examiner's Answer
includes the same analysis and responses included in the Final Office
Action. Appellants have not shown good cause why these arguments could
not have been raised in the principal Brief. We shall not consider new
arguments made in Appellants' Reply Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is 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)(l )(iv).
cdc
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6