Ex Parte Arneson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2012

11295041 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THEODORE R. ARNESON
____________________

Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claim 15 has been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a hinge mechanism
for handheld electronic devices (Spec. 1, [0001]).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A handheld electronic device comprising:
a first housing;
a second housing; and
an extendable hinge mechanism pivotally connected to
the first housing along a first axis, the extendable hinge
mechanism pivotally connected to the second housing along a
second axis,
the extendable hinge mechanism is movable between at
least a first position and a second position, wherein a distance
between the first axis and the second axis of the extendable
hinge mechanism is different in the second position than when
in the first position,
wherein the first housing is non-pivotally movable
relative to the second housing.

Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

3
References
Zou US 7,299,523 B2 Nov. 27, 2007
Qian US 7,058,351 B2 Jun. 6, 2006
Goldenberg US 5,363,089 Nov. 8, 1994
Nagai US 5,995,373 Nov. 30, 1999

Rejections
(1) Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zou and Qian.
(2) Claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg.
(3) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zou, Qian, Goldenberg, and Nagai.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19
Claims 1-7 and 17-19
Appellant asserts the invention as recited in claim 1 is not obvious
over Zou and Qian (Br. 4-5). Specifically, Appellant contends Zou teaches a
single hinge that pivotally constrains the housing and cover action about a
single axis (Br. 5 and 7). Therefore, according to Appellant, Zou does not
disclose “the first housing is non-pivotally movable relative to the second
housing” as recited in claim 1 and “relative motion between the first housing
and the second housing is independently constrained by both the first pivot
axis and the second pivot axis” as recited in claim 17 (id.).
Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

4
Further, Appellant argues the Examiner’s suggestion to modify the
hinge of Zou to incorporate telescoping parts is misplaced as the
combination would interfere with the object or intent of Zou (id.). Appellant
asserts the teachings of Qian are not within the scope and content of the
prior art (id.). According to Appellant, “[i]t is unreasonable to input the
knowledge of the document scanning arts to the designer of handheld
electronic device housings, like cell phone housings” (id.).

Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou
and Qian teaches or suggests “the first housing is non-pivotally movable
relative to the second housing” as recited in claim 1 and “relative motion
between the first housing and the second housing is independently
constrained by both the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis” as recited
in claim 17?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined Zou and Qian?

Analysis
With respect to Appellant’s arguments that Zou does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations, we note the Examiner is relying on Qian to
teach this limitation (Ans. 4). Additionally, we are not persuaded an
ordinary artisan would find Qian to be non-analogous art as argued by
Appellant (Br. 5). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Qian is being
relied upon as teaching or suggesting hinging mechanisms of electronic
devices and is therefore, analogous art, i.e. within the scope and content of
the prior art (Ans. 11-12).
Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

5
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s articulated reasoning as to why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
technique of Qian into the system of Zou (Ans. 4-5 and 12-14). We are
additionally not persuaded that integrating the hinge of Qian into Zou’s
design would interfere with the object or intent of Zou. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 12-14).
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Zou and Qian teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent
claims 1 and 17 and dependent claims 2-7, 18, and 19, not separately argued.
Moreover, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by improperly
combining Zou and Qian.

Claim 9
Appellant argues the housing in Zou does not rotate 360 degrees and
thus, only one side of each of the first and second housing portions in Zou
can be adjacent (Br. 6).
Issue 1c: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou
and Qian teaches or suggests the additional limitation as recited in claim 9?

Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own (Ans. 7 and 12). Appellant has not persuaded us the
Examiner erred.

Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

6
Claim 11
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Qian as teaching a hinge
having an axis that is aligned with a mid-plane of a housing portion is
erroneous as Qian does not teach this limitation (Br. 6). Further, Appellant
maintains the Examiner’s “vague reference to an historical judicial ruling,
without analogizing the facts of the instant application, lacks a factual basis
and thus, fails to state a prima face [sic] case of obviousness” (id.).
Issue 1d: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zou
and Qian teaches or suggests the additional limitation as recited in claim 11?

Analysis
Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We find
the Examiner has set forth that locating the axis along a mid-plane of either
housing would have been merely rearranging the already taught elements
(Ans. 13). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in this reasoning, or further, that locating the axis in the
recited location would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond
the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Therefore, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred.

Issue 1 Conclusion
The Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and suggestions
of Zou and Qian or in finding the combination of Zou and Qian teaches or
suggests the invention as recited in claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19. Therefore,
Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

7
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zou and Qian.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20
Claims 8 and 20
Claims 8 and 20 were not separately argued and thus, claims 8 and 20
fall with their respective independent claims, claims 1 and 17.

Claims 12-14 and 16
Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over Zou, Qian, and
Goldenberg because the relied upon references do not suggest disposing a
flexible circuit “within the extendable hinge” of Zou, the portion of the
flexible circuit being looped at least partially about either the first axis or the
second axis (Br. 8-9). Specifically, Appellant contends incorporating the
flex assembly into the rotation assemblies would likely extend about the
single hinge, since the rotation assemblies are disposed laterally of the single
hinge (Br. 9). Additionally, according to Appellant, Zou’s rotation
assemblies would likely be unable to accommodate a flexible circuit of
Goldenberg and Qian’s hinge between the cover and the scanning body
would prevent a flexible circuit from being looped partially about either axis
(id.).

Issue 2a: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg teaches or suggests “a flexible circuit having a
Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

8
portion disposed at least partially within the extendable hinge mechanism,
the portion of the flexible circuit is looped at least partially about either the
first axis or the second axis” as recited in claim 12?
Issue 2b: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining Zou,
Qian, and Goldenberg?

Analysis
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own (see Ans. 8-9 and 14-15). We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that include the argument that “it is questionable
whether there is sufficient spacing to accommodate a flexible circuit of
Goldberg [sic] within the rotation assemblies of Zou” (Br. 9) (emphasis
ours). Indeed, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or argument to
convince us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.

Issue 2 Conclusion
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg teaches or suggests the invention as recited in
independent claim 12 and claims 8, 13, 14, 16, and 20, not separately
argued. Moreover, the Examiner did not err in combining the teachings and
suggestions of Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg. Therefore, the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Zou, Qian, and Goldenberg.

Appeal 2010-006914
Application 11/295,041

9
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 10
Appellant did not argue claim 10 separately, and thus, claim 10, which
depends from claims 1 and 9, falls with these claims for the reasons set forth
in Issue 1. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zou, Qian, Goldenberg, and Nagai.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc