MOBILE TECH, INC. (ASSIGNEE) et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2021004574 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
90/014,366 08/13/2019 9786140 10463-024RX1 3556
34395 7590 09/01/2021
OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
4979 Admiral Steet
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
EXAMINER
GELLNER, JEFFREY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 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 MOBILE TECH, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant

Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
Patent US 9,786,140 B21
Technology Center 3900
BEFORE DANIEL S. SONG, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Issued to Henson et al. on October 10, 2017 (“the ’140 Patent”). The ’140
Patent was also the subject of IPR2019-00078 and IPR2019-00079 in which
the Board denied requests to institute inter partes reviews. 2019 WL
1978426 (PTAB 2019), 2019 WL 1984263 (PTAB 2019).
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and 306, Mobile Tech, Inc.
(“Appellant”)2 appeals from the final rejection of claims 1–96. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are drawn to a cable management apparatus for hand-held
electronics. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A cable management apparatus for use in mounting one of
a plurality of electronic devices to a display comprising:
a source module for providing at least a single-source
power signal;
a mounting member adapted to receive an electronic
device, wherein the mounting member is lifted and returned to a
resting position on the display, and further, the mounting
member is electrically connected to the source module and
receives the power signal from the source module delivered to
the mounting member at a certain voltage, when the mounting
member is in the resting position, for passing power through the
mounting member to the electronic device;
a tether assembly adapted to connect to the mounting
member, wherein the tether assembly comprises a portion that is
adapted to transmit an optical signal;
an adaptor cable assembly selected from a plurality of
adaptor cable assemblies associated with the plurality of
electronic devices, wherein the adaptor cable assembly includes
a cable that electrically couples the electronic device to the
mounting member by electrically adapting said certain voltage

2 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MOBILE TECH, INC.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

3
delivered to the mounting member, via the single-source power
signal, to an appropriate voltage required to power the electronic
device;
a battery storage means carried by said mounting member,
the battery storage means being charged by the single-source
power signal when the mounting member is in the resting
position; and
a security sensor arrangement carried by the mounting
member, the security sensor arrangement operating from power
supplied via the same single-source power signal at least when
the mounting member is in the resting position, and further, the
security sensor arrangement being operated by the battery
storage means when the mounting member is lifted from the
resting position.
Appeal Br. 50 (Claims App.).
Claims 6, 12, 19, and 26 are also independent claims. Although these
claims are also drawn to a cable management apparatus, they differ in scope
from independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 51–56 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–18, 26–34, 36, 52–58, 63, 68–74,3 84, and 93–96 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being as being anticipated by
Logokett (WO 2011/045058 A2, published Apr. 21, 2011, citations to the
English translation of record). Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 19–25, 43–50, 59–62, and 75–79 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Logokett in view of Hotelling
(US 7,352,567 B2, published Apr. 1, 2008). Final Act. 12.

3 Although the heading in the Final Action omits claim 68 from this
rejection, it is evident from the body of the Final Action that claim 68 is
included in this rejection. Final Act. 3, 11.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

4
3. Claims 35, 37–42, 51, 64–67, and 80–83 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Logokett. Final Act. 14.
4. Claims 85–92 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Logokett in view of Ott (US 2006/0097875 A1, published
May 11, 2006). Final Act. 15.
OPINION
Effective Filing Date
Before addressing the prior art rejections listed above, we must
address whether the ’140 Patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
Application No. 12/819,944 (“the ’944 Application”), filed on June 21,
2010, which issued as US Patent No. 8,698,617 (“the ’617 Patent”). As the
Appellant explains, “[t]he effective filing date of the ’140 Patent is an
important issue, since the priority date of the ’140 Patent, as indicated on the
face of the issued patent, June 21, 2010, precedes the filing date of
Logokett.” Appeal Br. 10.
The ’140 Patent issued October 10, 2017 from application Serial No.
15,221,497 (“the ’497 Application”), filed on July 27, 2016, which,
according to the related application data, is:
Continuation of application No. 14/092,845, filed on Nov. 27,
2013, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of
application No. 14/066,606, filed on Oct. 29, 2013, now
abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No.
12/819,944, filed on Jun[e] 21, 2010, now Pat. No. 8,698,617.
The ’140 Patent (63).
The Examiner determines that “because 14/092,845 is a CIP of
14/066,606 the effective filing date of the ’140 [P]atent is considered to
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

5
extent back no farther that [sic, than] the filing date of 14/092,845 – 27
November 2013.” Final Act. 20. The Examiner also explains that “[s]ince
all independent claims (claims 1, 6, 12, 19, and 26) in the ’140 [P]atent
claim a tether ‘adapted to transmit an optical signal’ or a ‘fiber optical cable’
all claims (claim[s] 1-96) in the patent at issue have an effective filing date
of 27 November 2013.” Ans. 20. Thus, the Examiner’s position is that
“[s]ince Logokett has a filing date of 21 April 2011, it is competent prior art
for all claims.” Ans. 20.
The Appellant disagrees with the Examiner and asserts that the
earliest effective filing date of the ’140 Patent is June 21, 2010, which is the
filing date of the ’944 Application. Appeal Br. 7. In that regard, the
Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not met his burden of showing that
Logokett “is valid prior art,” especially considering that the rejection “was
issued in the context of a reexamination of the ’140 Patent, which is
associated with a presumption of validity.” Appeal Br. 10–11. According to
the Appellant, the “supporting disclosure for the independent claims in the
’140 Patent is contained in the initial portions of the disclosure and in the
initial figures that are identical” to the disclosure and Figures of the ’617
Patent. Appeal Br. 12–13. The Appellant also points out that the summary
of claim 1 provided in its Appeal Brief shows that the claimed subject matter
“was fully and completely disclosed” in the ’944 Application. Reply Br.
10–11. Accordingly, the Appellant requests reversal of the rejections
because Logokett is not prior art. Appeal Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments as to the ultimate
issue of the effective filing date. We initially note that contrary to the
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

6
Appellant’s assertion, there is no presumption of validity in reexaminations.
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also In re
Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012; In re Swanson, 540
F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In addition, even if the Appellant is
correct that “[t]he effective filing date of any particular claim in the ’140
Patent is that of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,617 as long as the subject matter that
is being claimed was disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 8,698,617,” the subject
matter of the recitations “adapted to transmit an optical signal” or a “fiber
optical cable” noted by the Examiner are not disclosed in the ’944
Application in a manner that establishes possession by the inventors at the
time of its filing. Appeal Br. 12.
A claim for priority, or “benefit”, of an earlier filed patent application
is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 120. Under § 120, an application is entitled to
the filing date of a previous application when the claimed invention is
“disclosed in the [previously filed application in a] manner provided by
section 112(a).” 35 U.S.C. § 120. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) states “[t]he
specification shall contain a written description of the invention . . . .” The
“test for sufficiency [under § 112] is whether the disclosure of the
application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en banc). The “test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners
of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention
understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

7
invented the invention claimed.” Id. “[Written] description must ‘clearly
allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
invented what is claimed.’” Id.
The disclosure of the ’617 Patent that issued from the ’944
Application states “[a]s material technologies develop, fiber optic cables
may serve as tethers where the cable transmits digital signals that are not
used for power.” The ’617 Patent, col. 6, l. 67–col. 7, l. 3. There is no
additional disclosure regarding a tether assembly that is “adapted to transmit
an optical signal” as recited in independent claims 1 and 26, or regarding “a
fiber optic cable” as recited in independent claims 6, 12 and 19. On its face,
by prefacing the sentence with “[a]s material technologies develop,” the
above noted singular sentence in the Specification looks to some future
technological development and indicates that such technology, and the
claimed subject matter at issue, was not in possession of the inventors at the
time of filing of the ’944 Application. The ’617 Patent, col. 7, ll 10–11.
The disclosure as to “fiber optic cables” in the ’617 Patent is merely
future-looking, and aspirational. Thus, such a disclosure is inadequate to
demonstrate that the inventors possessed the invention as now claimed.
Accordingly, such a disclosure is insufficient to establish a priority benefit to
the claimed subject matter pertaining to a tether assembly that is “adapted to
transmit an optical signal” as recited in independent claims 1 and 26, or “a
fiber optic cable” as recited in independent claims 6, 12 and 19.
The Appellant also argues that pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 is applicable,
which requires the asserted prior art to be a printed publication prior to the
invention. Appeal Br. 13. The Appellant asserts that it provided “several
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

8
dated documents showing that the subject matter disclosed in the U.S. Patent
No. 8,698,617 was conceived of as early as 2008, and, therefore, U.S. Patent
No. 8,698,617 cannot be anticipated by Logokett.” Appeal Br. 13–14 (citing
Evidence Appendix).
This argument is unpersuasive. Even if pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
applicable, the Appellant does not submit an affidavit under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.131(b) with supporting evidence that establishes conception and due
diligence in reduction to practice as required. Moreover, the Appellant does
not point, with particularity, to where the submitted documents establish
conception of using “optical signals” or “fiber optic cables.” Indeed, neither
the document “LP Freedom LP3,” nor the document “MTI FreedomTM LP3”
submitted by the Appellant appears to mention anything pertaining to optical
signals or fiber optic cables. Appeal Br. 66–74 (Evidence App.).
Therefore, the Appellant has failed to establish that any of the claims
of the presently reexamined patent are entitled to priority benefit date of
June 21, 2010 of the ’944 Application. Accordingly, we find that Logokett
is prior art.

Rejection 1: Anticipated by Logokett
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18, 26–34, 36, 52–58, 63, 68–74, 84,
and 93–96 as being anticipated by Logokett. Final Act. 3.
Claims 1–11
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that the recited
“source module for providing at least a single-source power signal” is
disclosed by Logokett’s power supply 12. Final Act. 3; see Logokett Fig. 1.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

9
The Appellant disagrees and argues, inter alia, that Logokett fails to disclose
the recited source module. Appeal Br. 16. The Appellant argues “[t]he
phrase ‘source module’ is well described in the ’140 Patent” and that “it
would be apparent to anyone familiar with modern technology that the
phrase ‘source module’ refers to something other than a power supply.”
Appeal Br. 16 (citing ’140 Patent, col. 13, ll. 31–33, 53–57); see also Appeal
Br. 30–31 (“those skilled in the art of secure display systems for electronic
devices well understand the meaning of the phrase ‘source module,’ as that
phrase is explained and used in the ’140 Patent.”). The Appellant argues
that “source module” would be understood in view of the Specification “as
providing security and power connections for individual post positions,” and
that “[t]he ’140 Patent [] clearly indicates that this is a well-understood and
common meaning for the phrase ‘source module’ to those skilled in the art.”
Reply Br. 15–16. The Appellant further argues that “the phrase ‘control
module’ and the phrase ‘source module’ refer to the same entity in the ’140
Patent,” and such a module is not disclosed by Logokett. Appeal Br. 17.
We find these arguments generally persuasive. As the Appellant
points out, in the Specification treats the term “source module” as a known
term of art for a device that does more than simply provide electrical power.
See, e.g., the ’140 Patent col. 3, ll. 54–57 (“It is also common for displays of
this kind to be connected to an under-the-counter source module. As a
person skilled in the art would know, source modules provide security and
power connections for individual post positions.”); col. 4, ll. 33–36 (“In
prior designs, this generated a detectable security breach signal via breaking
the circuit defined by the hard-wired circuit connection between puck and
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

10
source or control modules below the counter.”); col. 13, ll. 3–7 (“In the
previous description relating to FIGS. 1 and 8, cable 38 was described as
part of an overall wiring assembly that connected each post assembly 10 to a
source or control 5 module that is normally located under the countertop of
the display.”); see also id. at col. 4, ll. 43–47. Indeed, US 6,386,906 B1 to
Burke referenced in the Background section of the ’140 Patent discloses a
“source module 18” that “receive[s] and transmit[s] input and output source
signals,” and “may be designed and constructed to provide [] connections in
manners known to those skilled in the art.” Burke, col. 6, ll. 6–9, 27–29;
Fig. 1; see also id. at col. 6, ll. 14–27.
In addition, we further agree with the Appellant that in view of the
above-noted portions, “the phrase ‘control module’ and the phrase ‘source
module’ refer to the same entity in the ’140 Patent.” Appeal Br. 17.
Consistent therewith, the Appellant points out that “[a] diagram of a source
module 102 is provided by Figure 9, clearly showing connections 38
between the source module 100 [sic, 102] to and a large number of post
positions 10A-H.” Appeal Br. 16.
Importantly, as the Appellant further points out, the ’140 Patent
discloses that the control module is powered by a power supply 118. Appeal
Br. 16–18; see also ’140 Patent, col. 13, ll. 31–33; Figs. 9, 10. Figures of
the ’140 Patent “clearly show[] a source module 102 and a power supply
118, and it is quite clear that these are quite different entities.” Appeal Br.
18.
Therefore, in view of the preponderance of the evidence, we agree
with the Appellant that the term “source module” is a known term of art that
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

11
refers to a device that provides security connections and power connections
for individual post positions, and processes security signals from such post
positions.
The power supply device 12 of Logokett is not a source module
because it “does not provide or receive security signals and does not provide
power to multiple post positions through multiple connections.” Appeal Br.
19; see also id. at 21 (“those familiar with basic electronics would readily
appreciate that a conventional power supply unit, like that shown in Figure 1
of Logokett, supplies only power to devices to which it is connected.”); id. at
31 (“there is nothing in Logokett that teaches or suggests the source module
clearly shown as a separate and different item 102 in Figure 9 from the
power supply 118 shown in Figure 9 of the ’140 Patent.”). Indeed, as the
Appellant argues, Logokett’s power supply 12 corresponds to the power
supply 118 disclosed in the ’140 Patent. Appeal Br. 18–19.
The Examiner points out that the claims merely recite that the “source
module” provides a “power signal” (claim 1) or an “electrical signal” (claim
6) such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “source module”
encompasses Logokett’s power supply device, which “supplies operating
power to the apparatus.” Ans. 21. However, we agree with the Appellant
that it “is not required to define or explain entities and concepts that are
well-known to those skilled in the art.” Reply Br. 14. The fact that a source
module provide power does not diminish the known fact that it also provides
security connections and power connections for individual post positions,
and processes security signals from such post positions.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

12
Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant that Logokett fails to
disclose a source module because “Logokett’s power supply is clearly a
conventional power supply,” and “[p]ower supplies, unlike source modules,
do not provide or receive security signals . . . generally do not provide low-
voltage connectors to multiple post positions in a multiple-post-position
display system.” Appeal Br. 18; see also id. at 16–17.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the adaptor cable assembly includes a
cable that electrically couples the electronic device to the mounting member
by electrically adapting said certain voltage delivered to the mounting
member, via the single-source power signal, to an appropriate voltage
required to power the electronic device.” Appeal Br. 50 (Claims App.,
emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Logokett discloses this limitation
in “cable (13) that electrically couples the electronic device to the mounting
member by electrically adapting said certain voltage delivered to the
mounting member (implied), via the single-source power signal (12), to an
appropriate voltage required to power the electronic device (implied).” Final
Act. 4.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that “Logokett discusses or
mentions nothing about providing adaptability to different power needs of
the different objects.” Appeal Br. 27. In that regard, the Appellant points
out that Logokett does not disclose anything “related to incorporating
resistors in adapter cables and using an adapter cable specifically selected
from a set of adapter cables for a particular electronic device secured by
Logokett’s apparatus.” Appeal Br. 27; see also id. at 26–27 (citing the ’140
Patent, col. 11, ll. 40–52; Fig. 20). The Appellant argues that, instead,
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

13
“Logokett’s apparatus is a standalone device in which power is directly
supplied by wall-socket-mounted power supply 12.” Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner responds that “[e]lements such as resistors in the
adaptor cable assembly does not appear to be claimed.” Ans. 22. However,
although the Examiner is correct that no specific element such as a resistor is
recited, claim 1 nonetheless recites that the cable “electrically couples the
electronic device to the mounting member by electrically adapting said
certain voltage delivered to the mounting member,” making it clear that the
cable performs the function of electrically adapting the voltage provided.
The Examiner does not explain, nor is it evident, how voltage of the single-
source power signal is electrically adapted by the cable in Logokett.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1 is reversed. The additional disputes
between the Examiner and the Appellant as to whether the device of
Logokett delivers the power signal “at a certain voltage” by regulating the
voltage, and whether Logokett discloses “an adapter cable assembly selected
from a plurality of adaptor cable assemblies associated with the plurality of
electronic devices,” as required by claim 1 are moot. Final Act. 3; Appeal
Br. 24, 26–27, 30–31, 50; Ans. 22; Reply Br. 16–18. The rejection of claims
2–5 that ultimately depend from claim 1, is also reversed. Independent
claim 6 similarly recites “a source module for providing at least one
electrical signal.” Appeal Br. 51 (Claims App.). Accordingly, this rejection
is reversed as to claim 6, as well as claims 7–11 ultimately depending
therefrom.

Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

14
Claim 12
In contrast to claim 1, independent claim 12 does not recite “a source
module.” Rather, claim 12 merely recites “a source for providing at least
one electrical signal.” Appeal Br. 52 (Claims App.). Accordingly, the
above discussed analysis with respect to “source module” is inapplicable to
claim 12. The Examiner finds that Logokett discloses “a source (12) for
providing at least one electrical signal.” Final Act. 7 (citing Logokett Fig.
1).
Claim 12 also recites “at least one wire-to-wire connection between
the source and the mounting member when the mounting member is in the
resting position, for electrically communicating the at least one electrical
signal from the source to the mounting member.” Appeal Br. 52 (Claims
App.). The Examiner finds that Logokett discloses “at least one wire-to-
wire connection (11) between the source (12) and mounting member (4)
when the mounting member (4) is resting on the base member or assembly
(3) (translation at page 9, lines 11-17) and connecting [sic] broken when
lifted from resting position (shown in Fig. 2; implied from translation at
page 9, lines 11-17).” Final Act. 7.
The Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because it amends
the claim language. Appeal Br. 34–35. However, the Examiner is not
amending the claim, but, rather, is merely paraphrasing the claim limitation
with annotations indicating where the recited elements are disclosed in
Logokett. The Appellant does not identify any substantive difference
between the claim and the Examiner’s paraphrasing. Thus, this argument is
unpersuasive.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

15
The Appellant also argues that the Examiner failed to properly
interpret the limitations “source” and “signal,” but does not even proffer an
interpretation that is contrary to the Examiner’s implied interpretation based
on the plain and ordinary meaning of such terms. Appeal Br. 34–35. When
electrical power is supplied by a power source, it is provided as an electrical
signal having voltage and current. Accordingly, the Examiner’s position
that power supply 12 of Logokett is a source that provides an electric signal
is well founded, and the Appellant does not submit any persuasive argument
as to why Logokett fails to disclose this limitation. Thus, we affirm the
rejection of claim 12.

Claims 13 and 14
As to dependent claim 13, the Examiner finds that Logokett discloses
“a power storage device means (10) carried with the mounting member (4)
for supplying power to the electronic device when the wire-to-wire
connection is broken” as recited by claim 13. Final Act. 7 (citing Fig. 1).
The Appellant refers to arguments submitted relative to claims 2–5 and 7–11
stating that “many of these dependent claims are similar,” and further asserts
that Logokett does not disclose the recited powering of the electronic device
as recited in claim 13. Appeal Br. 35.
The Appellant’s simple assertion is insufficient to rebut the
Examiner’s finding that the charge store in the sensor unit of Logokett
powers the electronic device when it is removed from the base unit. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

16
the claim.”). Moreover, Logokett discloses that “[i]n order to supply voltage
to the electronic unit 5, the electronic unit 5 has a charge store 10, which can
be preferably a capacitor, or also an accumulator,” and that “an electrical
connecting line 13 is provided for connecting the electronic unit 5 to the
object 2, here a cellular telephone.” Logokett 9. Logokett further discloses
that “an accumulator of the object 2 to be secured can be charged via said
connecting line 13,” and that “the accumulator of the object 2 is charged so
that the object 2 is always ready for operation and demonstration.” Logokett
9. Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding of anticipation as to this
limitation is supported by Logokett’s disclosure, we affirm the rejection of
claim 13, as well as claim 14 depending therefrom.

Claims 15 and 16
The Examiner rejects claim 15 finding that Logokett discloses “a
security sensor arrangement (8) carried by the mounting member (4), the
security sensor arrangement being adapted to wirelessly transmit a security
condition signal to a receiver” as recited. Final Act. 8; see also Final Act. 4
(citing Logokett pg. 2, ll. 9–26; Fig. 1 with respect to claim 2).
As noted, the Appellant relies on arguments submitted relative to
earlier claims, and as such, the Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 2 are
pertinent because claims 2 and 15 both recite a security sensor arrangement
that wirelessly transmits a security condition signal to a receiver. In that
regard, the Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has not attempted to
explain or interpret the phrase ‘wirelessly transmits,’” and that “Figure 1 of
Logokett does not show any type of wireless transmission.” Appeal Br. 32.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

17
The Examiner explains that “because claim 1 goes to transmission
through a fiber optic cable, and dependent claim 2 goes to ‘wireless
transmission,’ fiber optic transmission is considered to be the wireless
transmission as claimed.” Ans. 22.
The meaning of the limitation “wirelessly transmits” is clear on its
face based its plain and ordinary meaning. We agree with the Appellant that
“‘wireless transmission’ refers to transmitting signals through the air, as
would be understood by familiar with modern science and technology,” and
“include[s] radio-frequency radiation, light-frequency radiation broadcast
through the air, acoustic waves, and other such broadcast communications
that involve antennas for reception.” Reply Br. 19. We also agree with the
Appellant that “[t]ransmission of an optical signal through a fiber-optic
cable is not an example of wireless transmission,” and that interpreting
“‘wireless transmission’ onto transmission of an optical signal to a fiber-
optic cable” is “inconsistent with the meaning with which the phrase is used
in the ’140 Patent.” Appeal Br. 33; see Spec. col 4, ll. 1–5; col. 5, ll. 4––13;
col. 7, ll. 17–19, 27–29; col. 12, ll. 45–48. The fact that a claim recites a
tether that transmits an optical signal does not preclude a security sensor
arrangement from also providing and using a wireless signal. We further
discern no disclosure in Logokett of a wireless transmission. Accordingly,
we reverse this rejection as to claim 15 and claim 16 depending therefrom.

Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

18
Claims 17 and 18
Claims 17 and 18 are substantively similar to claims 13 and 14.
Appeal Br. 53 (Claims App.). Thus, for the reasons discussed above relative
to claims 13 and 14, we affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 18.

Independent Claim 26
In rejecting independent claim 26, the Examiner finds that Logokett
discloses that “the base assembly further comprises (1) base assembly
circuitry (implied from contacts (11) in, and power source (12) connecting
to, the base assembly (3)) configured to receive power from a power source
(12), and (2) a base assembly electrical contact (11) connected to the base
assembly circuitry” in the manner recited by the claim. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner also finds that Logokett discloses that the puck assembly
comprises:
(1) a puck assembly electrical contact (11,8), (2) puck assembly
circuitry (5) connected to the puck assembly electrical contact,
and (3) a connector (region of (5) at power cable (13) in Fig. 2)
connected to the puck assembly circuitry and a power cable that
is connectable to a power input of the electronic device (implied
from Figs, 1, 2).
Final Act. 9.
The Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because “there is
no circuitry shown in any of the figures in Logokett within the base
assembly nor is there any discussion in Logokett with regard to circuitry
connected to the base assembly electrical contact.” Appeal Br. 36. The
Appellant further argues that Logokett fails to disclose the recited puck
assembly electrical contact, puck assembly circuitry, or connector as
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

19
required by claim 26. Appeal Br. 36. According to the Appellant, “[a] pair
of conductive wires or lines connecting the power-supply output to contacts
11 would not, for example, represent a circuit,” and points out that the
Figures of Logokett merely show “little rectangular volumes, many
unlabeled, and many completely undescribed.” Appeal Br. 37.
However, it is not apparent why multiple conductive lines connecting
the power output to contacts would not constitute a circuit in view of its
plain and ordinary meaning,4 and the common knowledge that circuits are
required to convey power to the appropriate electrical components. In
addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that the apparatus
of Logokett would contain circuits within its base unit and its sensor unit in
order to operate its electrical components.5 Indeed, a skilled artisan must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references
expressly disclose. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962).
The Appellant further asserts that “[t]here is no indication in
Logokett’s figures that the electrical contact 11 interfaces to the electrical

4 Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary: “circuit: 4 a: the complete path of an
electric current including usually the source of electric energy.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circuit (last visited Aug. 23,
2021).
5 Although the following need not be relied upon to address this rejection,
we also note that Logokett discloses that “at the base unit 3, an optical
receiver, which is not shown, is provided at the end of the optical waveguide
of the securing tether 6, and said optical transmitter 9 [in sensor unit 4] and
said optical receiver form an optical signal transfer device with the optical
waveguide of the securing tether 6.” Logokett, pg. 9, ll. 1–10; Figs. 1, 2. A
person of ordinary skill would know that such optical receivers and
transmitters incorporate circuits.
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

20
unit 5.” Appeal Br. 36; see also Appeal Br. 37. However, this assertion is
unpersuasive because the contacts provide the power to the sensor unit, and
the contacts are depicted as protruding from the electronic unit 5. Logokett
Fig. 2. In addition, Logokett also discloses that “[i]n order to supply voltage
to the electronic unit 5, the electronic unit 5 has a charge store 10 . . .
charged by means of electrical contact elements 11 on the base unit 3 and on
the sensor unit 4 and by means of a power supply device 12.” Logokett 9.
The Appellant also asserts that there is also “no connection shown or
discussed between the power supply or the base unit and the electronic unit
in Logokett.” Appeal Br. 37. However, as discussed above, Logokett
discloses that the battery of the object 2, i.e., cellular phone, “can be charged
via said connecting line 13,” and that “the accumulator of the object 2 is
charged so that the object 2 is always ready for operation and
demonstration,” which means that the line 13 must be “connected to the
puck assembly circuitry” as claimed. Logokett 9; see also id. Fig. 2.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we are not persuaded
by the Appellant’s arguments, and affirm the rejection of independent claim
26.

Claims 27–34, 36, 52–58, 63, 69, 70, 72–74, and 93–96
The Appellant relies on dependency on claim 26 and arguments
directed to claims 2–6 and 13–18 in support of patentability. Appeal Br. 38.
Accordingly, we reverse this rejection as to dependent claims 28–31 that
require a wireless communication of the security condition signal. However,
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

21
we affirm the rejection of the remaining dependent claims 27, 32–34, 36,
52–58, 63, 69, 70, 72–74, and 93–96.

Claims 68, 71, and 84
The Appellant does not submit any arguments with respect to
dependent claims 68, 71, and 84. Accordingly, these claims fall with claim
26 from which they depend.

Rejection 2: Logokett and Hotelling
Claims 19–25, 43–50, 59–62, and 75–79 are rejected as being
unpatentable over Logokett in view of Hotelling. Final Act. 12. As to
independent claim 19, the Examiner finds that Logokett fails to disclose that
“the mounting member and the base member returnable to the resting
position at more than one rotational position” as recited. Final Act. 13.
However, the Examiner relies on Hotelling for disclosing “an electronic
device a mounting member that has a resting position at more than one
rotational position (abstract),” and concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the cable management
apparatus of Logokett by having an electronic device with a mounting
member that has a resting position at more than one rotational positions so as
to allow the user flexibility in use.” Final Act. 13.
Initially, the Appellant relies on the argument that Logokett is not
prior art, which is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appeal Br.
38. The Appellant also argues that the rejection does not sufficiently explain
why a person of ordinary skill would have made the combination because
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

22
there is no explanation as to what constitutes a mounting member in
Hotelling, or how its docking station is related to that of Logokett or the
invention of the ’140 Patent. Appeal Br. 39. In that regard, the Appellant
argues that “the Examiner has made no attempt to show how Hotelling’s
disclosed electrical contacts and inductive-coil-based power-transfer
mechanisms could possibly be incorporated into Logokett.” Appeal Br. 39.
The Appellant argues that unlike Logokett and the claimed invention, “the
electrical contacts disclosed by Hotelling are planar,” and “need to be
mounted to planar surfaces” at coinciding “orthogonal rotation ax[e]s
passing through the center points of the electrical contacts” and the
electronic device in order to allow for flexibility in rotational orientation.
Appeal Br. 43; see also Appeal Br. 40–42. The Appellant points out in
Logokett, however, “the only possible rotation axis passing through both the
base unit and the sensor unit is the axis of symmetry of the tether,” such that
Hotelling’s disclosed electrical contacts cannot be used with the device of
Logokett unless it is “completely redesigned.” Appeal Br. 43–44.
Accordingly, the Appellant argues that the rejection fails to “show how the
combination can be made, why success would be expected, and why it
would occur to one skilled in the art to combine the references.” Appeal Br.
47.
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments. It is apparent from
the Examiner’s articulated reasoning that the rejection relies on Hotelling
merely for disclosing the desirability of allowing an electronic device to be
positioned in more than one rotational orientation. Indeed, the Examiner
explains that:
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

23
the combination [is] proper because Hotelling discloses the
concept in the electrical art of a docking station and a portable
electrical device functioning in multiple orientations. These
structures are akin to the mounting member and base member
in the claimed invention. Given the teachings of Logokett and
Hotelling it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to
combine these teachings.
Ans. 23.
However, it is not apparent how such a general teaching or suggestion
in Hotelling would motivate a person to modify Logokett, or provide
guidance as to how such modification can be made, without significant
reconstruction of Logokett’s apparatus. The Examiner’s broad statement
that it would have been desirable to “allow the user flexibility in use” does
not offer any substantive guidance as to how the apparatus of Logokett
should be modified. Final Act. 13. The technical disclosure of Hotelling,
which is directed to inductive charging, is not helpful in that regard.
Thus, because the suggested combination appears to be based on
impermissible hindsight, we reverse this rejection of claims 19–25, 43–50,
59–62, and 75–79.

Rejection 3: Obvious over Logokett
Claims 35, 37–42, 51, 64–67, and 80–83 are rejected as being
unpatentable over Logokett. Final Act. 14. All of these claims ultimately
dependent from independent claim 26. The Appellant unpersuasively relies
on dependency on independent claim 26 for patentability of these rejected
claims. Appeal Br. 47. In that regard, the Appellant does not submit
arguments directed to the particular limitations recited in these dependent
claims. Instead, the Appellant simply argues that the rejection of these
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

24
claims should be reversed because they are “based on conclusory
assertions.” Appeal Br. 47. In particular, the Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s reasoning for the modification to the apparatus of Logokett
based on “use of the apparatus, cost of materials, [] efficiency in
manufacturing,” “ease of replacement,” and “ensur[ing] the charging of the
battery,” are insufficient to support the rejections. Appeal Br. 47–48.
This argument is also unpersuasive. What is required of the Examiner
is articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). The articulated reasons based on use, cost, efficiency in
manufacturing, ease of replacement, and ensuring charging, are not simply
assertions that can be dismissed and remain unaddressed because they are
nonetheless reasons for the proposed modification. Cf. Dystar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation to combine can exists even when the
improvement is technology-independent and the suggested modification
results in a product that is more desirable, for example, because it is
stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more
efficient). Based on the limited argument presented by the Appellant, we
affirm the rejection of claims 35, 37–42, 51, 64–67, and 80–83.

Rejection 4: Logokett and Ott
Claims 85–92 are rejected as being unpatentable over Logokett in
view of Ott. Final Act. 15. All of these claims ultimately dependent from
independent claim 26. The Appellant unpersuasively relies on dependency
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

25
on independent claim 26 for patentability of these rejected claims. Appeal
Br. 48. Like Rejection 3, the Appellant also does not submit arguments
directed to the particular limitations recited in these dependent claims, but
simply argues that the rejection of these claims should be reversed because
they are “based on conclusory assertions” alleging “efficient merchandising”
and “consumer demand.” Appeal Br. 47. Such arguments are unpersuasive
as already discussed above. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims
85–92.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. More specifically,
1. Rejection of claims 1–18, 26–34, 36, 52–58, 63, 68–74, 84, and
93–96 as being as being anticipated by Logokett is:
a. Reversed as to 1–11, 15, 16, and 28–31; and
b. Affirmed as to claims 12–14, 17, 18, 26, 27, 32–34, 36,
52–58, 63, 69, 70–74, 84, and 93–96.
2. Rejection of claims 19–25, 43–50, 59–62, and 75–79 as being
unpatentable over Logokett in view of Hotelling is reversed.
3. Rejection of claims 35, 37–42, 51, 64–67, and 80–83 as being
unpatentable over Logokett is affirmed.
4. Rejection of claims 85–92 as being unpatentable over Logokett
in view of Ott is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18, 26–34,
36, 52–58,
102(a)(1) Logokett 12–14, 17,
18, 26, 27,
1–11, 15,
16, 28–31
Appeal 2021-004574
Reexamination Control 90/014,366
US Patent 9,786,140 B2

26
63, 68–74,
84, 93–96
32–34, 36,
52–58, 63,
68–74, 84,
93–96
19–25, 43–
50, 59–62,
75–79
103 Logokett,
Hotelling
19–25, 43–
50, 59–62,
75–79
35, 37–42,
51, 64–67,
80–83
103 Logokett 35, 37–42,
51, 64–67,
80–83

85–92 103 Logokett, Ott 85–92
Overall
Outcome
12–14, 17,
18, 26, 27,
32–42, 51–
58, 63–74,
80–96
1–11, 15,
16, 19–25,
28–31, 43–
50, 59–62,
75–79

REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART

PL Initials: gvw

For Appellant:

OLYMPIC PATENT WORKS PLLC
4979 Admiral Street
Gig Harbor, WA 98332