Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020001502 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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.
15/185,501 06/17/2016 Jinfeng Zhou 42536-0270 9225
116341 7590 05/26/2021
Schiff Hardin LLP (Intel)
c/o Laura C. Brutman
Schiff Hardin LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3000
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
KETEMA, BENYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
Patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINFENG ZHOU and ZHICHONG CHEN

Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN,
and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 10, 13–16, 18, and 19, which
constitute all of the claims pending. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17
have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 17, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Jan. 25, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed July 1, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 03, 2019 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates a method
and system for operating flat panel device (1001) having dedicated reset
switch (106/308), physically separated from power source key (304), to
disconnect battery (102) from load (104) of the flat panel from by generating
a trigger signal causing the flat panel device to reset when the touch control
panel is disabled (e.g., in a crashed state). Spec. 3:17–4:1, Figs. 1, 3.
Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject
matter:

Figure 1 illustrates flat panel device (100) including having reset switch
(106), which when activated, causes battery (102) to disconnect from load
(104) of the flat panel. Id.
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
3
Claims 1, 10 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A flat panel device, comprising:
a touch control panel;
a battery;
a power source key; and
a reset switch that is different than the power source key,
the reset switch being dedicatedly configured to disconnect the
battery from a load of the flat panel device, the load being
associated with one or more elements of the flat panel device
including the touch control panel that are powered by the
battery such that the reset switch controls battery power
delivered to the load,
wherein, in response to the reset switch disconnecting the
battery from the load, the flat panel device is forced to tum off
when the touch control panel is disabled,
wherein re-connection of the disconnected reset switch to
the load results in a trigger signal being generated that causes
the flat panel device to restart.

Claims App. (emphasis added).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Jeon US 2015/0061881 A1 Mar. 5, 2015
Xperia Sony Xperia Z Ultra user guide see the
description in
(http://www.boeboer.com/sony-xperia-
z-ultra-c6802-
c6806-c6833-manual-quide/), pp. 1–5
(Aug. 2013)).
Aug. 2002

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
4
IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 10, 13–16, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of Jeon and
Xperia. Id. at 5–13.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4–11.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2–
15; Ans. 3–8. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the
combination of Jeon and Xperia teaches or suggests a reset switch (different
than a power source key) to disconnect a battery from a load of a flat panel
device, as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–11. In particular,
Appellant argues that because Jeon’s power/reset combination button
performs both the power and reset functions, it does not teach a dedicated
single reset switch button that performs exclusively the reset function to
disconnect battery power from electronic device. Appeal Br. 7, 8 (citing
Jeon, Fig. 1B). Further, Appellant argues that Xperia does not cure the noted
deficiencies of Jeon because Xperia’s restart button is a power-based button
that helps to restart the phone when the Xperia Z Ultra screen stops

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
5
responding or hangs, as opposed to a button providing a reset function. Id.
at 9 (citing Xperia, p. 2). Furthermore, Appellant argues that Xperia’s restart
button is silent as to which particular portions of the device that the restart
button controls; and that the battery is not maintained in a disconnected state
after the button is released, whereas the claimed reset switch is operable to
keep the battery in a disconnected state. Id. at 10. Additionally, Appellant
argues that because Jeon’s power/reset button already performs the reset
function, it would not need Xperia’s separate reset button, and thereby
teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed combination. Id. at 10–11.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error.
Jeon discloses a flat panel device including a power/reset button,
which upon being actuated by a user, displays on the flat panel device’s
interface the options to power down or reset the interface thereby
disconnecting the battery from the interface. Jeon ¶ 89, Fig. 1B, item 161d.
Further, Xperia discloses a dedicated reset button in a flat panel device to
restart the device when the screen thereof stops responding, hangs or freezes.
Xperia 2. We do not agree with Appellant that Jeon’s disclosure of a single
power/reset button performing both the shutdown and reset functions teaches
away from Xperia’s dedicated reset button. Although the user’s actuation of
Jeon’s single button leads to the performance one of the two functions, it
does not preclude assigning the two functions to two separate buttons (one
dedicated to resetting the device and the other dedicated to shutting it down).
We find such an assignment of the functions to dedicated buttons would
merely require routine skill in the art. Because Appellant has not shown that
neither Jeon’s nor Xperia’s disclosure criticizes or discredits assigning a
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
6
dedicated function per button, we are not persuaded that the proposed
combination of the cited disclosures teaches away from the disputed claim
limitations. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Instead, we
find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings of Jeon and
Xperia is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled
artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would be
able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a
puzzle to predictably result in a flat panel device including a dedicated
button for powering down the device and a separate dedicated button for
resetting the device. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated
that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the
Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the
purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on the record before us, the
Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the
combination of Jeon and Xperia renders claim 1 unpatentable. Because we
are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–7, 10, 13–16, 18, and 19, because
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for the
Appeal 2020-001502
Application 15/185,501
7
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–7, 10, 13–16, 18, and 19 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–7, 10, 13–16, 18, and 19 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 10, 13–
16, 18, 19 103 Jeon and Xperia
1–7, 10,
13–16,
18, 19

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED